Dean,
Thanks for your input. I'm afraid you've completely bypassed (and
misunderstood) my argument, and by doing so, have merely begged the
question. My point is that Jesus isn't contradicting the OT in His view
of God's love. It's just as exclusive.
"Say's who?"
Well, Jesus does. He tells us that His teaching does not
nullify/contradict any of the Old Testament, even down to the last yod
and tittle.
And beyond that explicit statement, I would say the context gets to
dictate that, lest we end up with the "Life of Brian," unhinged
speculations one often sees put forward in these types of debates.
But if you want to argue that the biblical vision of God is
contradictory, then please provide examples of Jesus' concept of love as
being inclusive, rather than exclusive. Give me an example where Jesus
is offering God's love to the unrepentant, regardless of whether they
place themselves in the group of the repentant. I'd be happy to look at
that. As of right now, I'm completely unaware of any passage within the
entire Scripture, primary or secondary, according to your tier, that
presents God's salvific love as inclusive. Hence, I'm not taking the
word of the Prophets over what Jesus says. I'm taking what Jesus says
and comparing that to the Word of the Prophets, and they end up being
the same thing in context.
If everyone is so concerned about evangelicals being honest with the
text, one might ask the same of the non-evangelicals critiquing them.
There is no inclusive Jesus in the Bible, and hence, wrathful
exclusivism is the other side of the coin of loving exclusivism. Ergo,
to reject the God of the one is to reject the God of the other, which is
why one doesn't have the God of the Bible anymore once that is done.
That seems pretty basic, but I realize that would rock the paradigm in
which many fleeing evangelicalism have found comfort.
******************UPDATED***********************
Bryan, I wanted to respond to
another point in your post which is the concept of retributive justice
in the Bible. I've become convinced that retributive justice is read
into the Bible precisely because human beings can't get enough of it, we
relish it. But I don't think it's Biblical and I don't believe the
character of God has room for it. I think the only justice that is
consistent with the love of God that was revealed in the person of Jesus
Christ is restorative justice. It seems to me that justice without
love is revenge, and again, I can't understand the why a sovereign God
whose defining characteristic is love would have a need for revenge, in
fact, God doesn't need anything. So the problem I see with Christians
embracing retributive justice (and the danger I see in Penal
Substitutional Atonement in particular), is that it shows up in our
daily lives all over the place. We call for criminals to be put to
death, children to be jailed for life, countries to be bombed to the
stone age for what they did to us, all in the name of justice. It also
dovetails nicely with our modern doctrine of hell, which is retributive
justice "infinitized". I think it's dangerous, unbiblical, and in
direct contradiction with the life, death and resurrection of Jesus
Christ. The kingdom of God works opposite of the kingdom of man.
People don't get what they deserve, the sheep get into heaven and don't
know why, the father runs out to greet the lost son without him saying a
word, random people on the street are invited to the party, Lazarus
goes to Abraham's bosom just because he was poor. And all the religious
folks said, well that's impossible, that's not fair, what kind of God
is this?
-
Thanks again Dean.
I appreciate the attempt to make Jesus the grid through which
everything else is pulled. I think all Christians agree with this idea
in general. The question is whether we are really pulling everything
through the biblical Jesus or through our folk Jesus, which is really
nothing more than the Jesus of liberal ideals. This is why, I believe,
you continue to appeal to Jesus and make statements about Him that are
currently questions on the table.
As for attributing a bloodthirst to biblical scholars and theologians
who see retributive justice as one side of the coin of God's
restorative justice, I can only say that humans can't get enough of
affirmations that God loves them as well. Does that mean it isn't true?
What does the desire of a human for something to be true have anything
to do with whether it actually is true? You're attempting an ad hominem
at that point. Instead of attributing some evil motive to your opponents
at law, I would suggest dealing with contextual arguments if you want
to sway them instead.
I further think the problem is that you've created a false dichotomy
between God's retributive justice and His restorative justice, and this
has occurred, precisely, because the other question I was addressing is
not dealt with--namely, that God's love is exclusive. So the question
becomes, "Restorative to whom?" No one argues that God's justice isn't
restorative. The question becomes how and for whom it is restorative.
God restores order by removing chaos and its agents.
The removal of chaotic agents is a creative act that restores shalom
to God's people. There is nothing more biblical than that concept. It
runs throughout the entire canon. It is only by confusing God's love as
inclusive that one comes to read the life and teachings of Jesus as
contradicting the idea of retributive judgment as restorative judgment. A
murderer removed from a community via his execution is a creative,
restorative act in the Bible. It is a loving act, as the Bible defines
love.
Hence, the father runs out to greet his lost repentant son, the sheep
obey His voice and will not obey that of another, as opposed to those
who are not His sheep, people who will respond to the call to repentance
come to the party as opposed to those who don't repent and are
rejected, and the poor in Luke are identified with those who repent and
believe, as opposed to the apathetic rich who are rejected.
This is not even to mention the context of these passages within
books that argue that the faithful go off to eternal life and the
unrepentant to eternal damnation. Wheat and chaff, sheep and goats,
virgins who enter the wedding feast and those who don't, servants who
are rewarded and servants who are cast out, cut into pieces, thrown in
prison, etc.
Your paradigm does not make room for all of this because it puts an
inclusive blanket over the biblical concept of love that then ignores
the character and trajectory of love in the midst of what threatens who
is loved. That's a difficult concept to sustain in real life, and the
Bible doesn't attempt to pursue it, as I would argue that to love one
group is to "hate" another in terms of what a loving person must choose
in a chaotic world.
Hey Bryan, I think it's pretty
clear that the Bible contradicts itself in lots of places, I am well
aware of the mental gymnastics that conservative Christians perform to
reconcile these contradictions, but those same individuals would never
do that with any other text, so I fail to understand why it is required
when reading the Bible. It's a historical document written by ancient
peoples, I believe it's inspired by God, but to say it's a magic book
that needs to read seamlessly is not something my faith requires. That
Jesus says his teachings are consistent with the OT law I completely
agree with. But where we differ is what that means. You seem to think
that means that you still take everything in the OT on face value. I
don't think that's possible, and I don't think that's what Paul and the
other early Christians thought either.
You should pick up the book The Evangelical Universalist. We can
argue all day about what different passages in the Bible mean, but it's
pretty evident to me (and I think the history of the Church pretty much
proves this beyond any doubt), that you can create a list of Bible
versus that support a Calvinist version of salvation where only a
limited number of people in history (the so called "elect") are saved,
you can come up with a separate list that seems to imply that there a
large multitude that will be saved if they but repent, and you can come
up with another list of versus that seem to suggest universal salvation.
I guess my question for you is why do you think the Bible is written
this way? If your answer is that everyone else who disagrees with you
is wrong, then that pretty much ends our discussion, but I don't think
any sincere Christian who has studied theology and Church history can
really say something like that. The only conclusion I can come up with
is that the Bible says a bunch of different things to different people
depending on their predisposition.
I think you seem to believe that post-Evangelical folks come up with
this concept of God's "inclusivist love" as you call it because we can't
stomach the image of a wrathful God, is that what you think? If it is
not, then please feel free to clarify. The thing is, that couldn't be
farther from the truth. I've been thinking a lot about this lately, and
the biggest problem I have with Calvinists (and I'm not saying you are
one), is the inherent contradictions in that entire system of thought.
Why would God be mad at us if he is indeed completely sovereign? That
concept doesn't even make any sense. It only works with what I call
"Christian logic", which Christians don't utilize in any other context
but reading the Bible. Again, if God were good and loving, why would
he create some for the sole purpose of eternal conscious torment? If he
did, how would you differentiate God from Satan? What does the word
"good" mean if it is used differently when God acts versus when humans
act? Maybe we need a different word then because the purpose of
language is supposed to convey consistent ideas.
The reason I don't believe in a wrathful God (at least not in the
sense that you seem to) is because the Bible seems to suggest that the
greatest, most glorious thing that God has ever done in human history is
the atonement. It wasn't helping Israel commit genocide against some
neighboring people or striking down unrepentant people. It was dying on
the cross for us while we were still his enemies. My inclination is to
take that image to it's furthest possible logical extremity. If that
makes you uncomfortable because of some list of versus you can assemble,
then so be it. But I think that's the whole point.
Dean,
I'm not sure who it is you're speaking to at this point, as I argued
almost none of this. At this point, I think what is unfortunate about
these types of conversations is that you're bringing in baggage from
other conversations you likely have had and then supposing that I'm
arguing the same thing. So let me clarify a few things here (and I don't
really want to dominate this thread, so I'll likely bow out after
this).
1. What I've argued has nothing to do with whether the Bible
contradicts itself. That line of rebuttal is simply irrelevant to what
I've argued. My point is that ALL of the statements concerning God's
love, whether made by Moses, Jesus, the Prophets or Apostles are in the
context of exclusivism. They are not made in our modern liberal context.
So saying that I'm arguing from a list of prooftexts that may be
contradicted by other prooftexts, or I believe the Bible is a "magic
book," or has to be read as literal history is not paying attention to
what I'm saying. All of that has nothing to do with what I've argued.
2. I didn't argue that Jesus' statement that He is not contradicting
the OT takes the OT at face value. I simply take Jesus as saying what He
does--that He isn't contradicting even the least of commandments in the
law and whoever annuls and teaches others (i.e., contradicts that
teaching with another teaching) is to be considered least in the kingdom
of God. However, since the context of this has to do with His rebuke of
the Pharisees for playing with Scripture in order to remove the sting
of the commands found therein, I wouldn't feel too at leisure to play
with them either. Either way, however, exclusivism is all over the
Sermon on the Mount, so the context again does not play out in your
favor.
3. You can pick out a list of verses to support anything. What those
verses mean in context is a whole different animal. So merely pointing
out that you can make such a list does not negate arguments made from
the context of those passages.
4. The Bible is filled with diversity, either from authors seeking to
refute one another, different emphases due to circumstance or
clarification, etc. One's view of inspiration cannot be settled here,
but I can turn your question back on you, Why must one read the Bible as
ultimately contradictory rather than ultimately complementary,
especially if God's voice is spoken through human voices. Must we read
the text as though God is merely one of the human voices instead of
coming through all of them?
5. Liberals put a heavy emphasis on contradiction, but the truth of
the matter is, and this is something I have studied quite a bit, the
Bible is far more coherent than many often attribute to it. Often, we
are merely dealing with texts out of context, as we are concerning this
issue.
6. I don't believe that people merely want to replace the God of the
Bible with a more accommodating God for one particular reason. Sometimes
it might be out of rebellion (e.g., I often hear people say that they
would not worship God if He is the God of wrath, even if it were proven
to them that He was indeed); but largely I think a big problem is that
our concept of love became confused with acceptance, and because of
that, one who views God as loving must now try and fit that concept with
a God who seems to be not so accepting of everyone. If love is
exclusive then there is no need to force a reconciliation by pulling the
rest of the Bible through that grid, simply because it already fits. If
love is inclusive and accepting, and God is love, then I need to junk
anything in the Bible that rejects anyone and only accepts a certain
group. I can do this by saying, as some scholars do, that all of these
exclusive passages are just counter examples of what is good and true.
The problem is, as I've tried to point out above, is that you can't rid
the Bible of these passages without ridding it of the rest, since the
rest functions in the context of these others.
7. I am a Calvinist, so bingo on that one. However, it's clear to me
that you need to study up a little more on what Reformed theology
actually teaches concerning a lot of your objections. They seem to be a
lot of caricatures and strawmen rather than evidencing a knowledge of
the best of what a Reformed position would say to those things.
8. And that really goes for all of these conversations. You can run
screaming into battle and kill the drummer boy, leaving the army
untouched, and then proclaim how easy it was to beat your opponents; but
in the end, he's still standing and taking out your troops. It's easy
to caricature people who have a different view of the Bible than you as
employing "mental gymnastics," but in reality, they think the same of
you. Rather than trade insults, you should try and see how it makes
sense to read the Bible the way they do by engaging their best
arguments. Then try to see why yours may not be the best according to
their best arguments against your position. After that, everyone should
just go to the text and fill their heads with the historical and
literary contexts of a passage to make sure they're using it in a way
that honors and participates in the communicative process.
8. Jesus dying on the cross and God destroying the Canaanites,
ironically, are seen as the same types of events in Scripture. The cross
is not a contradiction to that, but the fulfillment of it, which is why
it is described as God putting Christ's enemies under His feet. The
cross is the most exclusive doctrine in the entire Bible. Only those who
obey the Son are saved by it. The wrath of God remains on those who do
not. There is really no dichotomy there unless one reads that into it.
If you really want to run through your other questions, Dean, I'd be
happy to be your dialogue partner. I think there is a lot of confusion
in what you're saying and I can help you at least articulate your own
position if you'd like. I would just do it on my blog rather than
dominate Dr. Enns' blog.
But, in summary, nothing you presented here contradicted what I was saying. Thanks again.
"The God of Love and Wrath Are the Same God in the Bible"
ReplyDeleteOf course!
What seems a bit odd and off-kilter to me is that these folks who disagree frequently vent their wrath towards orthodox folks such as yourself.
Keep fighting the good fight, Bryan!
Thanks Truth. I think their line of argument concerning love is a comfort for them, and also supplies a paradigm that allows them to dismiss anything that does not accord with modern notions of pluralism and tolerance. They're love is inclusive, but they still want to identify as Christians because it is who they have always seen themselves that way. It's hard to give up the label, but in truth, having thrown out the biblical view of love, they end up throwing out the biblical God and Jesus as well, and pretty much the actions of true love that require exclusivism by their very nature.
ReplyDeleteExcellent post. I just recently heard your "Bibliolater" message, which has answered nagging question's I've had about idolatry of the OT and the "Jesus Love Gospel" of our age that you call "Folk Religion". Thank you.
ReplyDeleteThanks JUne. I'm glad you were blessed by it. God bless.
ReplyDeleteI've only been able to locate three messages of yours on line at the Grace Reformed Church, Las Vegas site. Could you direct me to any others?
ReplyDeleteThere are only three that I've preached there, since we've been going there for less than a year. Unfortunately, I've had numerous sermons recorded on tape and cds that have been lost, so these three are the only ones available.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your prompt reply. I cant remember how I found your blog.
ReplyDeleteIt may have been off of Bret McAtee's Iron Ink blog. I am just a layman, but very concerned about not just "liberalism" but the flabby apathy of those under the "orthodox" and "reformed" banners. I find your writing quite coherent by the way, and am learning a great deal from your posts. Keep on battling.