General Conference 2012 #UMC Legislative Agenda – Something I like

You can find all the legislation here:

General Conference 2012 Advance Edition Daily Christian Advocate (ADCA) – UMC.org.

Going through this, I found one I particularly like:

Article XII, Confession of Faith

Amend Article XII, “The Judgment and the Future
State,” of the Confession of Faith of the Evangelical
United Brethren Church,” Discipline, 2008, ¶ 103, page
70, as follows:

We believe all men persons stand under the righteous judgment of Jesus Christ, both now and in the last day. We believe in the resurrection of the dead ; the righteous to life eternal and the wicked to endless condemnation. and the life everlasting.

Rationale:

a) Use of masculine terms for everyone is becoming
obsolete.

b) Article II of the Articles of Religion, Article
II of the Confession of Faith, and the first sentence of this
article all refer adequately to Christ’s judgment. It is not
our place as human beings to prejudge Christ’s work.

There are some things in there, however, that I’m not sure I would support….

argumentum ex silentio – The Senselessness of “Inerrancy of the Autographs”

In reading Vick’s work, about the way Adventists have had to redefine what ‘soon’ means in their eschatology, it came to me that Inerrantists have done much the same thing when redefining inerrancy until now, it is an argument made from silence. Now, it is that the original autographs were inerrant. This is, more than inerrancy in of itself, unprovable. Why? Because we don’t have autographs, and given textual and redactional criticism, we have come to understand that for many books in the Scriptures weren’t composed by a single author, in one sitting, but evolved over time. Take the Torah, or just Deuteronomy, or even Isaiah. So, if the autographs were the ‘God’s word’ bit (bad terminology, bad theology), then which author was it?

Inerrancy has been redefined until it is nonsensical now. It is an outside of Scripture expectation of what Scripture needs to be in order for the Christian faith to be true (another logical fallacy, but I won’t get into that). This is about the only thing the King James Only people get right – that inerrancy must be delivered through translations, and the such. Of course, they are wrong from the start. Inerrantists must believe that God dictated the original words even though Scripture doesn’t say that nor does history actually allow it. Those who follow Scripture, the inspirationists, understand as does most of Christian Tradition, that Scripture is God-breathed, motivated, directed, prompted… that the words are human, a human witness to God’s revelation in history…. but that the Grand Narrative of Scripture is where inspiration lies and when the Church acts rightly on that Narrative, the Church becomes infallible.

Strike science and government budgets from Tony’s resume

My dear, misguided, but nevertheless Christian friend Tony Breeden has become an expert in wordplay. He takes issue with my allowance that what Kentucky has done in supporting the Ark Encounters, replete with KJV-Onlyism’s unicorns, has in fact hurt education in that state. He writes, in part,

To give an example, a misguided theology student here in Appalachia made the following statement after reading that HuffPo article:

“Honestly… a 43$ million dollar tax cut and a 11$ million dollar interstate interchange… Wow… Of course, I guess if you actually want people to believe in unicorns, you need to cut funds to education…”

Note that he too simply re-gurgitated the misinformation that the HuffPo article. His unicorn comment refers back to Barry Lynn’s Ark Snark video which willfully misrepresented Answers in Genesis’ position that the Biblical term unicorn likely refers to a real creature, but something more akin to a rhinoceros than the fairy tale creature of pop culture. I submitted a comment to his site, noting where he’s repreated misinformation, but he has as yet neither published the comment nor corrected his post.

Okay… so the bit about unicorns… That’s not what the word actually says in Hebrew. I’ve checked with actual Hebrew scholars.

Further, like Tony does with science, he simply misses the dots in what everyone is saying.

Let me break it down…

First, a budget was approved to create a $11 million dollar interstate interchange for a park which no one knows if it will ever actually be built, but if it is built, then they will get $43 million dollars in tax credits. Now, the 11 million for the interstate-exchange-to-nowhere (c) is being funded in a budget that is facing cuts in other areas due to Kentucky’s poor economic state.

So… if you don’t have the budget to fully fund public education, then you shouldn’t have the budget to fund a  interstate-exchange-to-nowhere (c). However, the Governor of Kentucky is robbing, to borrow a cliche, Peter to pay Paul. Just think of it this way: If that interstate-exchange-to-nowhere (c)’s $11 million dollars weren’t being spent on concrete, then it could be spent on education.

Being a Young Earth Creationist doesn’t make you a scientist nor, obviously, does it make you an expert in government budgets.

Take it from me – one who actually has to deal with government budgets….

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta

Polkinghorne on the Virgin Birth

Luke, very explicitly in his story of the Annunciation (1.34-35), and Matthew, more obliquely (1.18), both assert the virginal conception of Jesus. Christian tradition has attached great significance to this, often rather inaccurately calling it the ‘virgin birth’. Yet in the New Testament it seems nowhere as widely significant as the Resurrection. Paul is content to simply lay stress on Jesus’ solidarity with humanity: ‘God sent his Son, born of woman, born under the law’ (Galatians 4.4). The theological importance of the virginal conception lies in its lending emphasis to the presence of a total divine initiative in the coming of Jesus, even if this truth is much more frequently expressed by the New Testament writers simply in the language of his having been sent. Jesus was not opportunistically co-opted for God’s purpose when he was found to be suitable, but he was part of that purpose from the start. The virginal conception is a powerful myth, and I believe that in the religion of the Incarnation the power of story fuses with the power of a true story, so that the great Christian myths are enacted myths. On this basis, I find myself able to believe in the virgin birth, even if the motivating evidence is less extensive than for the belief in the Resurrection. (p. 68-69)

I thought that this was interesting…. anyway… read Scott McKnight’s post on the subject.

A New-to-Me Science and Theology Blogger

Let me make it clear from the beginning that I do not believe that for theology to be intellectually acceptable or a worthwhile endeavor that it need to be scientific. Too often, disciplines outside of traditional science want to label their fields as scientific or use scientific terminology or methodology to make their disciplines seem more relevant in today’s scientific climate.

Theology in the Age of Scientific Reasoning | A biologist’s view of science & religion.

Well… there goes that paradigm of science and theology not being able to go together….

Friday with the Fathers: Augustine on “Inerrancy”

Simple exercise…. how do you read Augustine here?

Augustine (354-430): For it cannot be remotely possible that the authority of the Scriptures should be fallacious at any point. FC, Vol. 20, Saint Augustine Letters, 147. Augustine to the noble lady Paulina, greeting, Chapter 14 (New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1953), p. 181.

Augustine (354-430): I have thought it my duty to quote all these passages from the writings of both Latin and Greek authors who, being in the Catholic Church before our time, have written commentaries on the divine oracles, in order that our brother, if he hold any different opinion from theirs, may know that it becomes him, laying aside all bitterness of controversy, and preserving or reviving fully the gentleness of brotherly love, to investigate with diligent and calm consideration either what he must learn from others, or what others must learn from him. For the reasonings of any men whatsoever, even though they be Catholics, and of high reputation, are not to be treated by us in the same way as the canonical Scriptures are treated. We are at liberty, without doing any violence to the respect which these men deserve, to condemn and reject anything in their writings, if perchance we shall find that they have entertained opinions differing from that which others or we ourselves have, by the divine help, discovered to be the truth. I deal thus with the writings of others, and I wish my intelligent readers to deal thus with mine. NPNF1: Vol. I, Letters of St. Augustine, Letter 148, §15.

Augustine (354-430): For we walk by faith, not by sight (2 Cor. 5:7); but faith will start tottering if the authority of Scripture is undermined; then with faith tottering, charity itself also begins to sicken. See John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Part I, Vol. 11, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., De Doctrina Christiana, Book I, §37. (New York: New City Press, 1996), p. 124.

Augustine (354-430): Your design clearly is to deprive Scripture of all authority, and to make every man’s mind the judge what passage of Scripture he is to approve of, and what to disapprove of. This is not to be subject to Scripture in matters of faith, but to make Scripture subject to you. Instead of making the high authority of Scripture the reason of approval, every man makes his approval the reason for thinking a passage correct. NPNF1: Vol. IV, Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, Book XXXII, §19.

Augustine (354-430): What sort of a man this Nathanael was, we prove by the words which follow. Hear what sort of a man he was; the Lord Himself bears testimony. Great is the Lord, known by the testimony of John; blessed Nathanael, known by the testimony of the truth. Because the Lord, although He had not been commended by the testimony of John, Himself to Himself bore testimony, because the truth is sufficient for its own testimony. NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John, Tractate VII, §16, John 1:34-51.

Augustine (354-430): What is this word, which is thus called a light and a lantern at the same time, save we understand the word which was sent unto the Prophets, or which was preached through the Apostles; not Christ the Word, but the word of Christ, of which it is written, “Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God”? For the Apostle Peter also, comparing the prophetical word to a lantern, saith, “whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a lantern, that shineth in a dark place.” What, therefore, he here saith, “Thy word” is the word which is contained in all the holy Scriptures. NPNF1: Vol. VIII, St. Augustin on the Psalms, Psalm 119:105.

Augustine (354-430): Everything we have heard in the scriptures, brothers, is the voice of God saying “Watch out!” . . . Repent at the voice of scripture, for at the voice of the judge when he is here you will repent in vain. John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine Part 3, Vol. 2, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., Sermons, Sermon 22.3 (Brooklyn: New City Press, 1990), p. 43. (400 AD.)

Augustine (354-430): Let us treat scripture like scripture, like God speaking; don’t let’s look there for man going wrong. It is not for nothing, you see, that the canon has been established for the Church. This is the function of the Holy Spirit. So if anybody reads my book, let him pass judgment on me. If I have said something reasonable, let him follow, not me, but reason itself; if I’ve proved it by the clearest divine testimony, let him follow, not me, but the divine scripture. John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Part 3, Vol. 11, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., Newly Discovered Sermons, Sermon 162C.15 (New York: New City Press, 1997), p. 176.

The Bible is the Mark of the Beast!

Yay for biblical literacy!

THE BIBLE IS THE MARK OF THE BEAST You don’t have to be smart to know Jesus. This morning I saw my 1 year old ripping a bible, He knows Jesus just fine. Lest you become as a little child. The apostles were unlearned men. Some of them couldn’t read. The power is in the spirit They have also ripped up books like “Marley and the kittens”, and “Mickey Mouse books”.

Depravity. Stupidity. I don’t have enough nice words.

‘Mark of the beast’ – words found only in Scripture…

Warfield, great guy and all, but he worked backwards as well

When you start with a conclusion, something like ‘The bible is the Word of God,’ and attempt to defend it, you are working backwards. Now, some ignorantly say that this is an ad hom, but in reality, it is a reasonable statement. Indeed, presuppositionalism leads one to start working backwards from a set conclusion, dismissing anything that gets in its way.

Note what Warfield does for the word θεοπνευστον. He doesn’t explore the meaning but instead, assigns a meaning delivered to him by others and then defends it. This is a conclusion at the beginning. As I’ve noted earlier, Warfield was one to do this quite often. Anyway, he concludes, in part,

That the words of Scripture are conceived, not only in Hebrews but throughout the New Testament, as the utterances of the Holy Ghost is obvious enough and not to be denied. But it is equally obvious that the ground of this conception is everywhere the ascription of these words to the Holy Ghost as their responsible author: littera scripta manet and remains what it was when written, viz., the words of the writer.

Of course, Scripture doesn’t actually say this. When it speaks to the issue of authorship, it says the opposite, but that doesn’t stop people from having to grasp at straws.

Many point to the Church Fathers as believing in inerrancy (among other things), but that is simply false. While the way to this is usually through subjective reading, the fact remains, that many early Christians saw contradictions, saw problems, issues, etc… Where was the inspiration? The inspiration was in the message. When the Church interpreted it correctly, Scriptures had power.

Note this article,

The early Church also placed more emphasis on the message of scripture over actual words on pages. This is why early Christians almost unanimously read the Old Testament typologically (finding allegorical, hidden, references to Jesus and other New Testament truths), rather than only literally. St. Paul often read the scriptures this way (Galatians 4:21-31), as did the author of Hebrews. Most Church Fathers read the Old Testament this way (see the Epistle of Barnabas, written about 120 AD). Thus, early Christians were not so much concerned with the words per se, but rather with what the text told us about Jesus and the Christian faith. In this way, they often found multiple layers of meaning in the text, which of course included, but was not limited to, the literal one. Nonetheless, they had a high view of Scripture as uniquely divinely inspired and accurate writings. However, the Bible was never officially declared inerrant to the letter before the Reformation, and even then, it was declared as such in some Protestant denominations only. No early creed says one must believe the Bible is inerrant to the letter to be a true Christian.

The early Fathers held that the Bible was inerrant. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches affirm this as well. However, this is the case only when the Bible is properly understood, interpreted by the Church. This is inerrancy by ancient standards and not modern, fundamentalist standards. The early Fathers did not think that minor contradictions rendered the Bible errant, nor did they insist all stories were meant to be interpreted literally. For instance, the creation stories were often allegorized, interpreted in ways so as to prefigure Christ, or interpreted through the lens of the science of the day (or all three!). Thus St. Augustine could say each day in the Genesis creation story was equal to a thousand years, or that the science of the day should shape our understanding of the creation stories, without ever denying the divine inspiration of the Scriptures. So when a Catholic affirms the inerrancy of Scripture, the idea has far less baggage than the fundamentalist understanding.

Now, back to Plutarch and the use of that word. Unfortunately, too often people treat lexicons like they do secret codes. Words match words. This is why Thayers is better than Strong’s, if used correctly, because it seeks to give some usage of the word. Better is Louw-Nida,

 to a communication which has been inspired by God – ‘inspired by God, divinely inspired.’ πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος καὶ ὠφέλιμος πρὸς διδασκαλίαν ‘every Scripture divinely inspired and useful for teaching’ or ‘all Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching’ 2 Tm 3.16. In a number of languages it is difficult to find an appropriate term to render ‘inspired.’ In some instances ‘Scripture inspired by God’ is rendered as ‘Scripture, the writer of which was influenced by God’ or ‘… guided by God.’ It is important, however, to avoid an expression which will mean only ‘dictated by God.’

The issue with the inerrancy debate is that inerrantists make Scripture an idol. They remove from it the sacredness of Scripture. Again, look at Plutarch. His use of this word is important because it shows us that an ancient author who used this word didn’t have the theological attachment to it that modern fundamentalists have.

Scripture is sacred, but it is not God. Simply because something comes from God, or by the power of God, doesn’t make it inerrant. Indeed, as with the removal of Moses’ body so that it didn’t become an idol, it is best to allow Scripture to be what it says it is - θεοπνευστον.

I would suggest that if one’s faith is actually strong, they will not need to improve upon Scripture. I don’t. I am done with this subject. I don’t understand the logic of working backwards….

Plutarch and θεόπνευστος

Bust of Plutarch of Chaeronea, a Greek philoso...
Image via Wikipedia

In a recent conversation, one which I’m not going to link to because, well, every challenge presented, even in the most light hearted manner, friendliest push possible is answered with insults. However, I wanted to post on this because I felt like it may in fact be interesting.

As I noted last years, Plutarch and the author of 1st Timothy shared some common themes. Rodney has since done a post on Plutarch as well. Anyway, so you have the basic groundwork needed to understand that there may in fact be a connection between Plutarch and some of the New Testament writers, especially 1 Timothy. But, what about 2 Timothy? Well, that’s where θεόπνευστος comes in at.

As I suggested to someone recently, Thayer may in fact be a good place to start:

 θεοπνευστον (Θεός and πνέω), inspired by God: γραφή, i. e. the contents of Scripture, 2 Tim. 3:16 (see πᾶς, I. 1 c.); σοφιη (pseudo-) Phocyl. 121; ὄνειροι, Plutarch, de plac. phil. 5, 2, 3, , p. 904 f.; (Sibylline Oracles 5, 406 (cf. 308); Nonnus, paraphr. ev. Ioan. 1, 99). (ἐμπνευστος also is used passively, but ἄπνευστος, ἐυπνευστος, πυριπνευστος (δυσδιαπνευστος), actively (and δυσαναπνευστος; apparently either active or passive; cf. Winer’s Grammar, 96 (92) note).)*

That is Thayer’s complete entry on this word. Now, one should note that Thayer goes beyond a simply translation, but suggests contexts which range from Pseudo-Phocylides to the Sibylline Oracles. Both of these are fine, but considering that scholars have easily shown that both of those works make use of, through redactors, Christian theology, we may not want to go there for our sources.

Plutarch, however, remains a somewhat neutral source.

When speaking of Dreams in his work, Concerning Nature (5.2), Plutarch writes,

Democritus says that dreams are formed by the illapse of adventitious representations. Strato, that the irrational part of the soul in sleep becoming more sensible is moved by the rational part of it. Herophilus, that dreams which are caused by divine instinct have a necessary cause; but dreams which have their origin from a natural cause arise from the soul’s forming within itself the images of those things which are convenient for it, and which will happen; those dreams which are of a constitution mixed of both these have their origin from the fortuitous appulse of images, as when we see those things which please us; thus it happens many times to those persons who in their sleep imagine they embrace their mistresses.

While there may be issues with using Plutarch’s text here, as there are indeed with every ancient text, I shall take this text as a parallel text to the author of 2 Timothy. Note that some dreams are said to come from divine instinct, or perhaps, divine pushing. But, what does this mean? Well, divine dreams have purpose; natural dreams do not. But… more… dreams can be mixed of both!

What does this mean for the ongoing debate on whether or not God dictated the words of Scripture and thus, they are free of error (and feel free to attach to that last part whatever qualifier you may need to help rationalize it, you know – in the originals, in whatever it affirms)? My position is that Scripture is not the Word of God. Christ is. That is actually Scripture (John 1.1 for my position versus lots of presuppositions for the other position). Scripture is the human witness to God’s revelation and is not a revelation in of itself. It doesn’t really affirm anything, but stands as a witness to what God has done, will do, and wants to do. But, what Plutarch does do is to show that the word wasn’t meant to be thought of producing something eternally infallible, etc…, but something which God directs for a purpose, although, as he notes, divine and human instinct can mix.

Let’s keep Scripture in its proper place, as given to humanity for a purpose. Not all at once, not always in the way we want, sometimes as mythic historical narrative so that we can learn from it, but not as a dictation. Scripture is given to learn from and for the Church as a while to love by. The divinity of it mixes with humanity, so that we can embrace God.

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta