OFFICIAL: Biblical/Theology Discussion thread

[buckeyegrad]

Figures you would show me up with actual scripture, you're right. I should have I just got lazy.

To be fair, I've been teaching Hebrews over the last two months, specifically with an emphasis that it was written for a Jewish audience that only had the OT to rely upon to check the verasity of the author's claims. Hence, in our Bible Study discussions, we are specifically looking for the connections, and Jeremiah 31 has been discussed in depth quite a bit.

 

[MaxBuck]

You say it is vague in the OT, but explicit in the Gospel (which I assume you mean is NT). However, Hebrews directly quotes Jeremiah 31 several times to demonstrate the idea of a final and perfect atoning sacrfice that would result in the "fulfillment of the law" and a "complete and final forgiveness of sins" is not a new concept, but something that had been promised all along.

Also, I would completely disagree with your understanding of the Gospel being about forgiveness through faith and not works--which by the way is an OT principle (read Psalm 51 for one example). What verses would you point to to show that this is what any of the NT authors meant when they referred to the Gospel (i.e. Good News)?

grad, you should know by this point that I am not a Biblical scholar. I also view the Bible holistically, and I shy away from trying to interpret individual stanzas.

My own view is that the forest is far more valuable than the trees. In the same way that I think Talmudic scholars tend to distort the message in that tradition by focusing too much on minutiae, I think NT "scholars" often distort the meaning of the overall text by focusing too closely on individual passages of Scripture.

With all that being said, do you not agree that the Good News comprises the life and death of Jesus Christ, through whose death and resurrection was provided to us the opportunity for salvation through faith? If the Good News is not that, what is it?

 

[buckeyegrad]

With all that being said, do you not agree that the Good News comprises the life and death of Jesus Christ, through whose death and resurrection was provided to us the opportunity for salvation through faith? If the Good News is not that, what is it?

Yes, I agree with that definition of the Gospel in that it focuses on the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. I would also agree that justification/salvation through faith is a central element to the Good News. However, I believe it is in error to bring a contrast between faith and works (if such a contrast exists--James says it does not) into the discussion or definition of the Gospel.

The issue of faith in the Gospel has everything to do with the fact that as the New Covenant, promised by God through Jeremiah, it rests entirely on us having faith in the promises of God, much as the covenant God established with Abraham. However, once we tie works into this equation, we get into trouble because we want to automatically separate the two concepts. This comes a lot from a misreading of Paul's writings where he tries to show that this new covenant rests on God's promises rather than on our ability to follow His commands as was the case with His covenant at Sinai. However, if one reads Paul more critically (especially Romans) and harmonizes his message with the recorded teachings of Jesus, as well as the writings of James and the writer of Hebrews (who was at the very least heavily influenced by Paul, if not Paul himself), it is obvious that faith contains works within it.

Everyone knows James' saying "faith without works is dead", but what the writer of Hebrews shows us through his "Hall of Faith" in chapter 11 is that the great men and women of God who are praised for their faith, all acted upon it. Faith was not merely an intellectual consent, a set of beliefs, or how one makes meaning of the world as we often conceive of the word today; but it was the actual acting out (i.e. works) of those who did so because of God's promises.

P.S. I'm more of a try to see the trees and the forest simultaneously type of guy. That is what I have meant in the past when saying scripture must be interpreted through scripture. The meaning of every verse (tree) must be placed within the context of all scripture (forest).

 

[MaxBuck]

... once we tie works into this equation, we get into trouble because we want to automatically separate the two concepts. This comes a lot from a misreading of Paul's writings where he tries to show that this new covenant rests on God's promises rather than on our ability to follow His commands as was the case with His covenant at Sinai. However, if one reads Paul more critically (especially Romans) and harmonizes his message with the recorded teachings of Jesus, as well as the writings of James and the writer of Hebrews (who was at the very least heavily influenced by Paul, if not Paul himself), it is obvious that faith contains works within it.

We could not disagree more.

Faith and works are two different things. Those of us with strong faith will inherently want to work for the glory of God and for the betterment of the world condition of our fellowman, but saying that somehow "faith contains works" - that is pretty much heretical, I think.

 

[OSUsushichic]

There is some great scholarship going on in the area of biblical studies. Check out the LOLCat Bible Translation Project.

Main Page - LOLCat Bible Translation Project

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

There is some great scholarship going on in the area of biblical studies. Check out the LOLCat Bible Translation Project.

Main Page - LOLCat Bible Translation Project

This one goes out to the author of LOLCat bible translation:

I've got... too... much... time on my hands... and it's ticking away at my sanity.. I've got.. too much time on my hands.....

 

[buckeyegrad]

We could not disagree more.

Faith and works are two different things. Those of us with strong faith will inherently want to work for the glory of God and for the betterment of the world condition of our fellowman, but saying that somehow "faith contains works" - that is pretty much heretical, I think.

Heretical according to who? Scripture? Or to theologians who have taken pagan philosophy (definition of faith most of us use today) and combined it with Scripture?

If faith does not contain works, then explain James' comment that "faith without works is dead?"

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Heretical according to who? Scripture? Or to theologians who have taken pagan philosophy (definition of faith most of us use today) and combined it with Scripture?

If faith does not contain works, then explain James' comment that "faith without works is dead?"

James may have just been giving an opinion and not a statement of some sort of metaphysical fact.

Frankly, if one has faith, my thinking is they're going to do "good works" necessarily. What is a good work, I suppose, can be debated.... But, isn't it really more or less impossible to discern acts from one's beliefs? That is, if I believe in being nice to people (with or without God) doesn't it follow that I'll act nice to them?

 

[buckeyegrad]

James may have just been giving an opinion and not a statement of some sort of metaphysical fact.

We are talking about heresy, which means those broader questions of was James speaking his opinion or revelation from God is irrelevant to the immediate question since what James wrote is taken to be part of the definition of what is and is not heretical.

Frankly, if one has faith, my thinking is they're going to do "good works" necessarily. What is a good work, I suppose, can be debated.... But, isn't it really more or less impossible to discern acts from one's beliefs? That is, if I believe in being nice to people (with or without God) doesn't it follow that I'll act nice to them?

I agree with this, which aligns with my argument that works are contained with faith. You are correct to identify the next question, which is what are "good" works, which I take to mean what are those actions someone of a particular faith should be partaking in, but I am really hoping to stay more abstract at this point in time.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

We are talking about heresy, which means those broader questions of was James speaking his opinion or revelation from God is irrelevant to the immediate question since what James wrote is taken to be part of the definition of what is and is not heretical.

Yeah, I suppose so.... but, I think that sort of reasoning is unapproachable in its circular nature. It reminds me of my quarrel with the book I'm currently reading which has to do with Biblical Prophecy. It goes thru each book and outlines what is the prophecy, and then states how it was fulfilled. Take David and Goliath.... says David said he'd kick Goliath's ass in a certain way, and .... he did.....

Well, yeah... maybe.... I find it hard to confirm a prediction by giving instant credibility to the very same source.

For example, if I say "I prophecy that I will begin juggling knives in my office" and then later post "Hey, I just juggled knives in my office" you have equal reason to believe me as to disbelieve me....

Not sure I"m illustrating my objection well.... sorry for the bumbling....

Point is, you're coming from the assumption that James' ideas couldnt' be contained in the Bible if they're heretical - at the core... I'd agree that the inclusion of them in the Bible would turn them in to something that's "non-heretical." There's no proof that that is true, though it's certainly a reasonable belief. What I mean to say is, if James managed to get the words "Oh, and God likes it when you rape kids" in to the Bible, that doesn't mean God actually likes such a thing.. Even though, if it WERE in the Bible, we'd have to believe he does... get what I'm saying? I'm not being very clear today, I don't think.

 

[MaxBuck]

Heretical according to who?

Heresy is basically defined by the theological hierarchy of the Church. Now, if you were to argue that your church believes in works being part of faith, then I'd agree that, in your church, your view would not be heretical. But I think in the Catholic and mainstream Protestant theological viewpoints, it likely is.

Note I do not equate "heretical" with "wrong;" it just is what it is. From Dictionary.com:

her?e?sy [her-uh-see]
?noun, plural -sies. 1.opinion or doctrine at variance with the orthodox or accepted doctrine, esp. of a church or religious system.

 

[PlanetFrnd]

The issue of faith in the Gospel has everything to do with the fact that as the New Covenant, promised by God through Jeremiah, it rests entirely on us having faith in the promises of God, much as the covenant God established with Abraham. However, once we tie works into this equation, we get into trouble because we want to automatically separate the two concepts. This comes a lot from a misreading of Paul's writings where he tries to show that this new covenant rests on God's promises rather than on our ability to follow His commands as was the case with His covenant at Sinai. However, if one reads Paul more critically (especially Romans) and harmonizes his message with the recorded teachings of Jesus, as well as the writings of James and the writer of Hebrews (who was at the very least heavily influenced by Paul, if not Paul himself), it is obvious that faith contains works within it.

Everyone knows James' saying "faith without works is dead", but what the writer of Hebrews shows us through his "Hall of Faith" in chapter 11 is that the great men and women of God who are praised for their faith, all acted upon it. Faith was not merely an intellectual consent, a set of beliefs, or how one makes meaning of the world as we often conceive of the word today; but it was the actual acting out (i.e. works) of those who did so because of God's promises.

I completely agree with this. It's obvious that those who wrote the NT as well as Jesus Himself had an extensive working knowledge of the OT. The NT is written in terms of the OT, though it is at times rearranged (for lack of better terms) to either appeal broadly (Jesus' sermons, for example) or to rectify specific situations amongst the Jesus-following community (epistles, for example). The point of the NT is NOT to separate one book from another or even to separate one people from another, but rather to spread the news that the covenant with God had been realized through Jesus, delineate who was able to share in the covenant (everyone, not only those that strictly adhere to the law) and how to act accordingly (love thy neigbor, etc.).

 

[GoBucks89]

I would also argue that it was taught in the OT, especially through the prophets. I don't have time for a full explanation right now, but what immediately jumped to mind was Jeremiah 31:31-34.

The time is coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them," declares the LORD. "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. 34 No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the LORD. "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more."

Yep, this is indeed a reference to the new covenant. I stand corrected.

 

[Taosman]

Can someone explain to me what supersessionism is?
Thanks!

 

[Gatorubet]

Actually, the principle of turn-the-other-cheek comes from the Old Testament:

Do not say, "I'll pay you back for this wrong!" Wait for the Lord, and he will deliver you. (Proverbs 20:22)

Do not say, "I'll do to him as he has done to me; I'll pay that man back for what he did" (Proverbs 24:29)

I offered my back to those who beat me, my cheeks to those who pulled out my beard; I did not hide my face from mocking and spitting (Isaiah 50:6)

And most directly:

Let him offer his cheek to one who would strike him, and let him be filled with disgrace (Lamentations 3:30)

Although forgiving others was certainly a teaching of Jesus (Matthew 18), which I will address in another post, the turn-the-other-cheek principle is not about forgiveness. Rather it was about correcting the incorrect application of eye-for-eye, which the Pharisees had interpreted as being justification for personal revenge. Once we see the Old Testament teachings on this principle that Jesus was drawing from, we can see that he was really teaching about putting one's faith in God to carry out justice when one is personally persecuted or assaulted.

Well, Isaiah 50 in context seems to suggest something else.

Isiah 49:26

I will make your oppressors eat their own flesh;
they will be drunk on their own blood, as with wine.
Then all mankind will know
that I, the LORD, am your Savior,
your Redeemer

Isaiah 50:11

But now, all you who light fires
and provide yourselves with flaming torches,
go, walk in the light of your fires
and of the torches you have set ablaze.
This is what you shall receive from my hand:
You will lie down in torment.


Not so much forgiveness. Also, Proverbs is not saying "forgive" so much as "don't retaliate yourself, let God take vengence" - which is a good idea not to allow an escalation of violence, but that is not so much "forgiveness" as as delayed retribution by God. I mean, if we send bears to slaughter the little kids making fun of a bald guy, that is not so much forgiveness centered. I do not see the concept in the OT in the same way as the NT.

For example:

2 Kings 2:23

From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. "Go on up, you baldhead!" they said. "Go on up, you baldhead!" 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths. 25 And he went on to Mount Carmel and from there returned to Samaria.

Forgiveness? Not so much in the Old Testament.