Ship of Fools: Where in the Bible does it say this?

Thread: Where in the Bible does it say this? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028366

Posted by Jude (# 3033) on :

That non-Christians cannot go to Heaven. I have been told that it's quite clear that the Bible says this, but was not given any references. John 14 would appear to be one, but what others are there?

Sorry if this has already been done to death, I must have missed it.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

It's a deduction based on a number of references. 'He who does not believe is condemned already,' is one of them. John 3:18

As ever with this sort of thing, there's a lot of proof-texting that goes on - and pretty selectively too depending on what the proof-texters are trying to assert - and this happens on all sides.

The best approach isn't to say, 'Where does the Bible say this or that or the other?' but to take the whole tenor of the thing and to weight it all up rather than isolating particular passages.

You can make out a case for univeralism, annihilationism, limited atonement and a whole range of other positions if you simply take a handful of texts and emphasise them sufficiently.

It also depends on whether you take a Sola Scriptura approach (or a so-called Sola Scriptura approach) or whether you see tradition or Tradition as having any bearing on the issue.

So it's not as simple as saying 'the Bible says this' or 'the Bible says that.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

There's also strong univeralist themes in the Bible: I find Romans 11 most striking, where Paul explicitly says that God brought a hardening onto Israel in order to be merciful! "For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all."

This is all tied into ancient Jewish eschatology. The historical Jesus probably did teach that his enemies would be cast by Adonai into Gehenna. Paul, in turn, taught that the Gentiles were being brought in before the end of the world as it was (which both he, and Jesus, took to be imminent).

The authentic Paul was inconsistent, talking of God's wrath alongside God's mercy, but he was a charismatic leader, so inconsistency is to be expected. This only becomes a problem if the canon is expected to harmonize, instead of allowed to speak with its many voices.

[ 04. July 2014, 23:06: Message edited by: Byron ]

Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :

One of the most commonly-cited verses to support this view is Acts 4:12, in which Peter, preaching to the Sanhedrin about Jesus, says, "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved" (NIV; parallel translations can be found at the link above).

On the surface this seems a pretty plain declaration: Salvation comes only through Jesus, and there is no other name, other than His, upon which mankind can call to be saved.

I have heard other readings of it though, suggesting that salvation comes for everyone through Jesus, but that not everyone needs to explicitly know or call upon the "name" of Jesus in order to avail of that salvation -- in other words that Jesus saves everyone whether or not they acknowledge Him as Savior.

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :

This is one of those good issues (like the question of a biblical understanding of the term 'evil') against which to test principles of interpretation. I don't think it has been done to death, at least not here on the Ship, but I suspect this question like others will have foundered under the weight of the problems Gamaliel pointed out – proof-texting and lack of a proper co-textual and contextual understanding.

It's certainly worth a trial to test the approach. And so here's my take...

[1] Inspiration. Getting the easy bit out of way first(!). Here's the basic thesis. The authors of the biblical texts did not write those texts in a vacuum; they were not secretaries taking verbatim messages from their boss. Rather they were theologians in the sense that their experience of the God they served drove them to reflect on, and respond to, issues that arose around them. They drew on their personal experiences and knowledge – crucially here including their worldviews – whether consciously or unconsciously, to offer guidance on the way to live and the character of the God they served (this character point being used as a foundation or grounds for the points made about the way to live). It would follow from this that an understanding of those worldviews, those wider cultural presuppositions and the like, is vital for understanding what each and every author intended to say when he said the things he said using the words he used in the way he used them. Inspiration didn't override idiolect and verbal idiosyncrasy. The test here is that the biblical literature is full of such individual expression.

[2] Contextual. The thesis here is that the main worldview in operation in the ancient near east was that of covenant. I'm not talking about the individual and specific instances of covenant ceremonies that have been the focus of most studies into the subject of covenant, but of the underlying mental outlook on all of life that determined (probably pre-determined) the way people thought, lived, and interacted with the world around them. This is the overriding, comprehensive, grid or filter against which everything can be tested and measured. Worldviews tend to be validated when societies remain stable, people are at peace and all is well. If society falls apart, worldviews are questioned – not an easy thing for people to do because it requires an adjustment of their entire mental environment.

For our purposes here, the covenant worldview then provides the backdrop against which effective interpretation of the bible needs to take place. Because this worldview is inherent and assumed by authors and hearers at the time alike, it is not often that we would expect to see it being spelled out. It can be inferred, however, from the texts themselves. The key feature of a covenant worldview is that of loyalty. A senior member of a social group (family, clan, tribe, nation, empire, cosmos) has a duty of loyalty to his junior partners, to ensure stability, to protect, to bring justice. The junior members in return owed a duty of service, e.g., by paying taxes in maintenance of the stable state, to serve in the military in times of crisis, etc. Loyalty was the big thing. Dis-loyalty threatened stability; it brought fear, strife, lack of harvests, disrupted trade routes, etc., etc. Consequently the one who broke with the loyal ties between himself and his overlord (father, clan leader, tribal elder, king, emperor, god) risked instability. Such a threat was treason and deserved the penalty of death.

Here's the rub for our understanding of the bible. The biblical writers assume this as the backdrop. Anyone who was disloyal to God deserved death for treason. That was the given. It did not need to be stated, though we do find it stated here and there across both testaments in a matter-of-fact way.

What we would need to look for if we believe the biblical writers opposed that given state of things would be an overt, fronted, highlighted, emphatic, focussed statement to the contrary. It would have to be, if it was to succeed in overthrowing long and deeply held presuppositions. It would have to be “I know you have taken it for granted that God will destroy all his enemies – all those who have rebelled against him. Now however I want to you to have a paradigm shift and take on board an entirely different take on things...”

[3] Co-textual. Do we have such a text that undermines the covenant worldview? Here the thesis is perhaps more obvious – the interpreter would need not only to keep in mind the contextual issue of worldview, but also the way an individual author has arranged his material for rhetorical purposes (to effect an affect on his audience). This is the 'what every author intended to say when he said the things he said using the words he used in the way he used them' bit mentioned earlier.

Obviously this is the place now to delve into specific texts, but I thought it was worthwhile first to try and set a platform from which to launch. Byron's reference to Paul's statements on this could be a useful place to start – I take a different slant on things when it comes to seeing how Paul tackles stuff. I don't see inconsistency once the wider worldview and Paul's intimate knowledge of (and dependence on) the Jewish writings are taken into account. Variety in individual expression is not the same thing as diversity in theology. I see TS has also posted...

Mention of 'launch' just now, however, was far to close to 'lunch' so I'll take a break.

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :

Launching off again...

I suppose before Paul it's worth referring to Jesus' take on this. Essentially – to nip to the end – he picks up and validates the same understanding of the outcome of rebellion as the Old Testament writers before him, that those who rebel must be destroyed. The good news that Jesus refers to is that those who repent of their rebellion and who submit again to God's rule will 'be saved' as the phrase goes, but those who reject the offer will go inevitably to destruction. The offer of 'salvation' is always hedged with the condition – to those who believe (have faith in God, not some nebulous moral lifestyle of 'goodness', however defined).

On Paul, Romans is a good place to go because there he sets out his whole message, the back story to the assorted applications he focusses more on in his other letters. This back story is blatantly Jewish – and Jewish in the Jewish writings sense. His output is consistent with the biographical details he offers (and also given in Acts), that he was very well verses in those writings and interpretation. Hence the point made by more recent commentators on Paul (more publicly launched by E. P. Sanders) that in Romans he is rehearsing what others had been saying for centuries. What Paul offers in the way of new information is that the role envisaged by others for the rescuing of creation has been filled by God in and through the person of Jesus. It had already happened. Paul makes the point in his introduction:

quote:
Romans 1:1-5
From Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God. This gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, concerning his Son who was a descendant of David with reference to the flesh, who was appointed the Son-of-God-in-power according to the Holy Spirit by the resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord. Through him we have received grace and our apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles on behalf of his name. You also are among them, called to belong to Jesus Christ.

The message from God that the earlier writers had written about, and which Paul now carries forward like someone taking the baton over from a previous runner, is conditional – it refers to an “obedience of faith” that is a precondition for the vindication that came to Jesus. There's nothing contrary to Jesus' take on things here. Paul then goes on to spread out in detail the story of the world before turning to Israel as God's appointed and authorised (anointed) route to reversing the state creation was in. The point about conditional selection applies here, too. Paul refers to Elijah's experience in 11:2-5 that there were still some loyal ones in the sea of Israel's rebellion – a remnant.

The conditional element rules the whole passage. Paul uses the imagery of in-grafted branches to make the point that obedience in the faith continues to be essential. Failure to remain obedient will result in the same treatment God meted out to rebellious Israel – being cut off, not spared.

With this background, I would caution taking “all” in 11:25-32 in an unconditionally universal sense, any more than Paul meant it so earlier in chapters 1-8 (e.g., 3:23f: all have sinned...all justified...). The rhetoric is governed by the theme of conditional mercy – all have the offer of forgiveness, but all have to accept it and return to loyalty before the benefits of the offer can be received. This is in line with the OT understanding that Abraham was called to be the route of blessing to all the nations who bless him but equally a route of curse to all who curse him. Hence Paul could speak of Abraham as the father of all who are of the faith... (Rom. 4:16-17).

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
One of the most commonly-cited verses to support this view is Acts 4:12, in which Peter, preaching to the Sanhedrin about Jesus, says, "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved" (NIV; parallel translations can be found at the link above).

On the surface this seems a pretty plain declaration: Salvation comes only through Jesus, and there is no other name, other than His, upon which mankind can call to be saved..

In context, it is after a healing miracle.

Healing/wholeness/salvation share the same Greek root - so it is probably not about salvation for an after life.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

Yes, and (or but) Peter links it, with the reference to Psalm 118, to a much bigger picture than physical healing. Indeed, he uses the Psalm and the healing together to make a positively messianic statement about Jesus, and God's restoration of his people. The rest of the chapter makes it clear that this is also how his words were received. I think the hope for life after death is only part of the picture he has in mind - there implicitly because it is part of the package, rather than specifically in focus.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jude:
That non-Christians cannot go to Heaven. I have been told that it's quite clear that the Bible says this, but was not given any references.

I would posit that the Bible doesn't say that non-Christians cannot go to Heaven. At the least, before one can make such a statement, one has to clarify what is meant by "Christian" and "non-Christian," Can the thief on the cross properly be called a "Christian"?

quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
One of the most commonly-cited verses to support this view is Acts 4:12, in which Peter, preaching to the Sanhedrin about Jesus, says, "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved" (NIV; parallel translations can be found at the link above).

On the surface this seems a pretty plain declaration: Salvation comes only through Jesus, and there is no other name, other than His, upon which mankind can call to be saved.

Saying that salvation comes only through Christ is not the same as saying only Christians receive salvation.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:
Originally posted by Jude:
That non-Christians cannot go to Heaven. I have been told that it's quite clear that the Bible says this, but was not given any references.
I would posit that the Bible doesn't say that non-Christians cannot go to Heaven. At the least, before one can make such a statement, one has to clarify what is meant by "Christian" and "non-Christian,"

One also has to clarify what we mean by the word "heaven".

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
One of the most commonly-cited verses to support this view is Acts 4:12, in which Peter, preaching to the Sanhedrin about Jesus, says, "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved" (NIV; parallel translations can be found at the link above).

On the surface this seems a pretty plain declaration: Salvation comes only through Jesus, and there is no other name, other than His, upon which mankind can call to be saved..
In context, it is after a healing miracle.

Healing/wholeness/salvation share the same Greek root - so it is probably not about salvation for an after life.

But, if you go with "healing only comes through Jesus Christ" then that opens up all sorts of additional problems. How many doctors routinely heal people without any thought of Christ being involved? Yes, I would accept that as a matter of faith I can say that all good things comes from God through Christ, and so even those who act to bring good without knowledge of Christ are agents of the works of Christ. But, at the same time I expect most atheist doctors (not to mention Muslim, Jewish, or other members of other religions) would find it pretty offensive if I went around proclaiming that they were doing the work of Christ.

Though it's perfectly true that "salvation" has strong links to "healing" and "making whole", I think we're seriously missing the point if we read a narrative of an act of healing and somehow think that was an end in itself. Those narratives are there because they point to something else. Miraculous healing is sacramental, it's a visible symbol of the reality of the availability of true healing.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Healing/wholeness/salvation share the same Greek root - so it is probably not about salvation for an after life.

Or it's harder for English-speaking Christians to catch the very close relationship between healing/wholeness and salvation, since we replaced the Old English word for Savior—hǣlend—with Latinate forms. The Germans and Dutch still understand the Heiland to be the one who heals or makes whole.

Posted by Jude (# 3033) on :

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:
Saying that salvation comes only through Christ is not the same as saying only Christians receive salvation.

I understand that. What I am trying to get my head round is the excusive salvation preached by evangelicals. The reason is that I have close family members who are being taught this.

My personal belief is that Jesus Christ on the cross took upon himself all the evils of this world and overcame them by his resurrection. Through him all things were made, and through him all things will be re-made into perfection.

Salvation depends on the grace of God, who is of infinite love and ability. Nothing really to do with us, I think.

Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
One of the most commonly-cited verses to support this view is Acts 4:12, in which Peter, preaching to the Sanhedrin about Jesus, says, "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved" (NIV; parallel translations can be found at the link above).

On the surface this seems a pretty plain declaration: Salvation comes only through Jesus, and there is no other name, other than His, upon which mankind can call to be saved.
Saying that salvation comes only through Christ is not the same as saying only Christians receive salvation.

Yes, that's why I said "on the surface."

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jude:
What I am trying to get my head round is the exlcusive salvation preached by evangelicals. The reason is that I have close family members who are being taught this.

I suggest you ask your close family members whether those who are teaching them this can point to specific Bible passages.

Moo

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jude:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:
Saying that salvation comes only through Christ is not the same as saying only Christians receive salvation.
I understand that. What I am trying to get my head round is the excusive salvation preached by evangelicals. The reason is that I have close family members who are being taught this.

My personal belief is that Jesus Christ on the cross took upon himself all the evils of this world and overcame them by his resurrection. Through him all things were made, and through him all things will be re-made into perfection.

Salvation depends on the grace of God, who is of infinite love and ability. Nothing really to do with us, I think.

Except that you need to embrace it to benefit as has been pointed out. Looking back on my experience of coming to faith, there was an epiphany, a eureka moment where I realised he was real and it was all true. Going to heaven was never the issue it was about embracing or ignoring something and someone which had become undeniable. That was then and many years ago. The eureka moment has faded but was foundational. Analogy of falling in love if it helps. Terribly real for a time then it fades to a memory and you are left with dinners that need cooking and smelly socks but you put up with those because something deep has been planted.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
Launching off again...

I suppose before Paul it's worth referring to Jesus' take on this. Essentially – to nip to the end – he picks up and validates the same understanding of the outcome of rebellion as the Old Testament writers before him, that those who rebel must be destroyed. The good news that Jesus refers to is that those who repent of their rebellion and who submit again to God's rule will 'be saved' as the phrase goes, but those who reject the offer will go inevitably to destruction. The offer of 'salvation' is always hedged with the condition – to those who believe (have faith in God, not some nebulous moral lifestyle of 'goodness', however defined).

On Paul, Romans is a good place to go because there he sets out his whole message, the back story to the assorted applications he focusses more on in his other letters. This back story is blatantly Jewish – and Jewish in the Jewish writings sense. His output is consistent with the biographical details he offers (and also given in Acts), that he was very well verses in those writings and interpretation. Hence the point made by more recent commentators on Paul (more publicly launched by E. P. Sanders) that in Romans he is rehearsing what others had been saying for centuries. What Paul offers in the way of new information is that the role envisaged by others for the rescuing of creation has been filled by God in and through the person of Jesus. It had already happened. Paul makes the point in his introduction:

quote:
Romans 1:1-5
From Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God. This gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, concerning his Son who was a descendant of David with reference to the flesh, who was appointed the Son-of-God-in-power according to the Holy Spirit by the resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord. Through him we have received grace and our apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles on behalf of his name. You also are among them, called to belong to Jesus Christ.
The message from God that the earlier writers had written about, and which Paul now carries forward like someone taking the baton over from a previous runner, is conditional – it refers to an “obedience of faith” that is a precondition for the vindication that came to Jesus. There's nothing contrary to Jesus' take on things here. Paul then goes on to spread out in detail the story of the world before turning to Israel as God's appointed and authorised (anointed) route to reversing the state creation was in. The point about conditional selection applies here, too. Paul refers to Elijah's experience in 11:2-5 that there were still some loyal ones in the sea of Israel's rebellion – a remnant.

The conditional element rules the whole passage. Paul uses the imagery of in-grafted branches to make the point that obedience in the faith continues to be essential. Failure to remain obedient will result in the same treatment God meted out to rebellious Israel – being cut off, not spared.

With this background, I would caution taking “all” in 11:25-32 in an unconditionally universal sense, any more than Paul meant it so earlier in chapters 1-8 (e.g., 3:23f: all have sinned...all justified...). The rhetoric is governed by the theme of conditional mercy – all have the offer of forgiveness, but all have to accept it and return to loyalty before the benefits of the offer can be received. This is in line with the OT understanding that Abraham was called to be the route of blessing to all the nations who bless him but equally a route of curse to all who curse him. Hence Paul could speak of Abraham as the father of all who are of the faith... (Rom. 4:16-17).

Reckon I'm screwed then.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

Host hat on

This discussion has veered away from the Bible. If you like, the hosts can transfer it to Purg.

Host hat off

Moo

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

The important words are "whoever believes in Him shall have not perish but have eternal life..."

There needs to be a response where one is possible - or else eternal life is denied the unbeliever.

Posted by Jude (# 3033) on :

My point was that my "friends" were saying "the Bible says this" therefore I would like the discussion to remain on Biblical ground, therefore in Kerymania, if possible.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

Your friends are correct: the Bible as a whole does say that to go to heaven one does need to believe in and trust in Christ - be a Christian, if you will, a follower and disciple of Christ.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The important words are "whoever believes in Him shall have not perish but have eternal life..."

There needs to be a response where one is possible - or else eternal life is denied the unbeliever.

Muddy - I don't know whether you're in the same position as me, but if so, then nearly all your family are going to Hell, according to this doctrine.

How do you cope with that?

If you're not in that position, how would you cope with it if you were?

I coped with it by saying "stuff it; a God described as abounding in mercy, quick to love, slow to anger, has got to be more merciful than that" and left it there.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The important words are "whoever believes in Him shall have not perish but have eternal life..."

There needs to be a response where one is possible - or else eternal life is denied the unbeliever.
Muddy - I don't know whether you're in the same position as me, but if so, then nearly all your family are going to Hell, according to this doctrine.

How do you cope with that?

If you're not in that position, how would you cope with it if you were?

I coped with it by saying "stuff it; a God described as abounding in mercy, quick to love, slow to anger, has got to be more merciful than that" and left it there.

Well indeed. It's not enough to base a doctrine on a single verse. I quoted it because it must not be ignored and it must be factored-in to the discussion. What that verse, and others, does is to show that a response is a very important part of being a Christian. Faith isn't something 'done to you', faith is your response to the message of the gospel and the grace of God.

However, alongside this rather stark statement ' you must actively believe in Christ in order to live - there is mercy and justice.

The verse I often think of is 'Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?' from the story of Abraham's pleading with God over the coming destruction of Sodom.

I think I'm rather with CS Lewis here, that those who sincerely worship the divine figure they have perceived, even though it may be false, they will have that worship ascribed to Jesus at the end.
I believe that someone needs have heard clearly enough of the truth in order to make a decision and if they haven't, or if the truth has been inaccurately conveyed, then they will be judged according to the light they have received.

Salvation Army doctrine tells me that after the judgment there will be the 'eternal happiness of the righteous and the endless punishment of the wicked.'

I guess that the wicked are a lot fewer than some might imagine. I would start with those who were unrepentantly evil and then, at the other end, would include those who, having heard of Christ and his forgiveness simply rejected faith in him.

The righteous, I would suggest are those who, however imperfectly, have faithfuly believed in Christ, through those who have struggled to believe and behave as Christians, right through to those who have sincerely believed, in ignorance, that their 'god', worshiped from the heart is true.

Yes, I would strongly suggest that the judge of all the earth will do right; the correct decision will be made, not by me or the church, but by Christ whose heart is full of love, mercy, grace and justice.

BUT I would not want someone to presume! It is far better to know Christ than presume on the grace of God; far better to be assured of sins forgiven and enjoy the fellowship of Christ today than to hope that the judgment will be favourable.

My family? I look at most of them and I don't see unbelief; merely a rejection of the church, to be honest.
That might be a problem for ritually-obligated Roman Catholics but for me, I don't see a problem. They might be missing the blessing of Christian fellowship, they might be lacking in discipleship, commitment and holy living, but they know enough to have simply belief. I wish they were all uniformed Salvationists loving and serving Christ; but the judge of all the earth will do right.

I guess my task is to pray that the Holy Spirit will do his work of convicting, convincing and converting them - in his way and in his time.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Thing is, most of the people I know aren't in a position of not having heard. It's rather a position of "how do I know that what you're saying is true?"

This seems to me to be frequently missing from discussions about this question. Most people I know who aren't Christians are not non-Christians because they've rejected the message, but rather been unconvinced that it's actually true. And this doesn't seem unreasonable - why should we believe the Christian message and not the Hindu one? The Muslim one? The Jewish one? Humans have been on this planet for hundreds of thousands of years; burials of our ancestors seem to indicate ritual and religion, but Christianity is only two thousand years old - why should we believe that this particular take on the concept of God happens to be the right one?

I've not seen convincing evidence that Christianity is the "right" way. I try to stick at it because (a) I've not seen convincing evidence that it's the "wrong" way either, and something, sometime, must have caught me and turned me around, and (b) I like the central message (which I've seen well summarised two ways - Douglas Adams ("How great it would be if we started being nice to people for a change") and my BiL ("Yeah, you all screwed up, but guess what, you're forgiven, so go out there and stop oppressing people and being generally unpleasant.")

The idea that someone gets the eternal rotisserie for having different experiences which lead them to a different conclusion seems rather harsh to me. Unfair, even.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

This is a specifically Biblical discussion so it devolves into how scripture that deals with this should be understood,interpreted,exegeted or eisogeted even. The Christian faith asserts the Salvic function of Jesus Christ based on the way we read these verses. To have heard has got to be about more than casual knowledge and the obvious searching for his reality is something Jesus remarks on with approval. If you shall seek me,you shall find me when you shall search for me with all your hear Yea I will be found by you comes admittedly from the OT but Jesus did say :" come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden,and I will give you rest." Which is a comforting confirmation of the fact that he is out there wanting us to find him.

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Reckon I'm screwed then. [/QB]

Well, in a biblical sense...!

Just to add to the biblical references often quoted in the argument about future state, there is...

quote:
Romans 3:23
...all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

...followed by:

quote:
Romans 6:23
...the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

The thread is picking up on questions that are always necessary in any discussion about “What the bible says about...”, such as author's intention in using particular words (e.g., sin, eternal life), the sense of words being used by people today (e.g., 'heaven'), the co-text which the biblical authors used around particular words, and the wider context of worldview and presuppositions that underlie those words in use (then and now).

Perhaps equally important if not more so is the second stage – that of translating the meaning from the words in the bible to an application for today. There isn't a quick fix for this, it needs a hard slog through in the sandals of the biblical authors while avoiding the comfortable slippers of modern thought. In fact, it almost needs adopting the point of view that all commentators and interpreters since the first century were wrong, because their interpretations were warped by different worldviews to those of the biblical authors, if one is to get behind them to the original state. It's a common problem that questions like the one in the OP about “What the bible says about...” all too often morph effortlessly into answers about what later commentators and interpreters said about...

Karl's question about truth picks up the challenge from post-modern thinkers, in that mere Enlightenment liberal modernism will not suffice to answer the questions. It is too shallow. Hard work is needed. In fact, one of the outputs from post-modernism has to be that we are now in an age where we need to translate not just words, but worldviews as well.

One interesting place to start would be investigate Paul's use of “all” in Romans. Given that he operated in an environment where the existence of a deity or deities was a given (and indeed the concept of a supreme deity over all), so that he did not need to start his argument from cosmic silence, what ideas drove him to encompass the entirety of creation in his gospel? What did he understand by “all” when he said that God's message (the gospel) was Israel's story beginning with “The wrath of God is being revealed...against all...” (Rom. 1:18)? How about the “all” in 3:23 above?

If we had time, I would focus on Paul's introduction first (rhetorically, where main themes are parked) in 1:1-5 quoted in an earlier post for the “all” in “...to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles on behalf of his name.”

Post-analysis, of course, comes the issue that if we find a theme and are able to translate the worldview into the modern era, then anything that does not conform to it – however nice it feels – would not be “Christian” in a biblical sense. People may wish to worship a God in slippers, but that would not be the biblical God of sandals.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

So,Nigel, if "all" have sinned how could the all inclusiveness be questionable in any age or context? For mine one thing scripture seems able to do is speak into world views from outside them. The world view of the writers notwithstanding if one grants the Holy Spirit as the guide of the authors. If we take postmodernism as our age's world view, then that gives us the right to treat texts as a function of how the reader chooses to interact with them. However, to do this takes away the authority of the text under discussion and shifts the power to the reader. I know that this is not what you do or suggest BTW, but any sacred text, and particularly the Bible, ceases to be a sacred text if you treat it like this.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
So,Nigel, if "all" have sinned how could the all inclusiveness be questionable in any age or context? For mine one thing scripture seems able to do is speak into world views from outside them. The world view of the writers notwithstanding if one grants the Holy Spirit as the guide of the authors. If we take postmodernism as our age's world view, then that gives us the right to treat texts as a function of how the reader chooses to interact with them. However, to do this takes away the authority of the text under discussion and shifts the power to the reader. I know that this is not what you do or suggest BTW, but any sacred text, and particularly the Bible, ceases to be a sacred text if you treat it like this.

Which is what every single translator of The Bible has done anyway. Your point is the proof that the Bible can't be taken literally and that it is open to the reader to impose their own interpretation on it.

From the earliest Hebrew and Greek texts copied by hand and laboriously translated into different languages and "interpretations" the bible has been bastardised to support the translators agenda.

It's a torch, not a roadmap. You use it to see the road ahead, but it gives you no clue as to what lies to the left or to the right when you come to a fork. In that case you have to use your own best judgement and yes, sometimes you have to admit you are wrong and turn back.

God is mercy and love and cannot, absolutely cannot, cast anyone into pain or suffering, only rescue them from it.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

God is mercy and love and cannot, absolutely cannot, cast anyone into pain or suffering, only rescue them from it.

But that is the point of redemption, surely!

It is not that God casts people into pain and suffering, or rewards them with everlasting bliss, as if at this moment we are all in a neutral position and waiting for judgment to fall.

The point is that the whole of humanity is already, in truth and fact, condemned and 'in hell' though obviously waiting for the full force of that to be realised.

What Christ has done is to freely and openly provide redemption, rescue, a road out, of such a state. If those who have heard correctly and with understanding nevertheless reject that rescue, God is not responsible for their continued journey into darkness.

It seems to me that in dying for the whole world Christ has a great interest in calling as many people as possible off that broad road that leads to destruction; and it seems to me that if there is the slightest justification for grace to be applied and received in a person's heart - an imperfect response to grace, perhaps, or a sincere though ignorant adherence to another faith - then that person will be saved.

Jesus is indeed in the saving business, not the condemnation busines - he said as much himself.
But if people remain condemned through the non-reception of grace then justice takes its course.

We don't personally blame the judge in a crown court for the actual punishment the condemned man receives, even though he might pass down the conformation of the statutory sentence.

God might indeed be love, compassion, truth and justice - but what would he be if he arbitrarily set aside all justice in favour of love? Where would the love be in that? It would be mere sentiment.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

And where is God's love for those cast into eternal torment?

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
And where is God's love for those cast into eternal torment?

I guess it would be seen in the anguish on the cross - the pain God felt screams through all eternity. I infer from your question the thpught that a loving God would simply take the people out of hell because of his love for them.

My question would be, what kind of love would do that?

I might fall in love with a woman and convince myself that her life would be much better if she loved me too.
I see that woman in a relationship that I see is not right for her.
How can I stand by and watch her suffer?
I can offer my friendship, I can indicate my interest, my 'availability', even express my love and invite her to leave her lover for me.
But if she refuses, for whatever reason, is the fact that I love her reason enough for me to kidnap her?

If God loves the people who never believed in nor loved him - as he surely does - then to take them to heaven just because of his unilateral love speaks more of obsession, possessiveness and 'completing his collection' than of self-giving love.

Sometimes the reality of love is that it doesn't get what it thinks it wants.

You are also assuming that hell is equivalent to Dante's Inferno.
If hell were simply a place where God is not felt - darkness as opposed to light - what then? Is it the pictures of torment, torture and 'fire' that you object to? Would you be content for hell to simply be a place where people can exist for eternity as they have existed in life - as atheists - living with the consequences of their choice?

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
So,Nigel, if "all" have sinned how could the all inclusiveness be questionable in any age or context? For mine one thing scripture seems able to do is speak into world views from outside them. The world view of the writers notwithstanding if one grants the Holy Spirit as the guide of the authors. If we take postmodernism as our age's world view, then that gives us the right to treat texts as a function of how the reader chooses to interact with them. However, to do this takes away the authority of the text under discussion and shifts the power to the reader. I know that this is not what you do or suggest BTW, but any sacred text, and particularly the Bible, ceases to be a sacred text if you treat it like this.
Which is what every single translator of The Bible has done anyway. Your point is the proof that the Bible can't be taken literally and that it is open to the reader to impose their own interpretation on it.

From the earliest Hebrew and Greek texts copied by hand and laboriously translated into different languages and "interpretations" the bible has been bastardised to support the translators agenda.

It's a torch, not a roadmap. You use it to see the road ahead, but it gives you no clue as to what lies to the left or to the right when you come to a fork. In that case you have to use your own best judgement and yes, sometimes you have to admit you are wrong and turn back.

God is mercy and love and cannot, absolutely cannot, cast anyone into pain or suffering, only rescue them from it.

You are correct if interpretation is left to human devices but Jesus promised the Holy Spirit, the one whom he said would lead into all truth.

Translation is generally not interpretive though. Some of the key words create differing flavours but don't change the meaning Which is usually a message of Gods love for man and man's need for God.
For Instance:
Ps 84:1 NASB How lovely are they dwelling places O Lord of Hosts
KJV How amiable are thy tabernacles O Lord of hosts
NIV How lovely is your dwelling place,Lord Almighty.

If it was interpretive there would be many parts of the Bible conveniently lost by now. When you do have interpretive renditions they are acknowledged as paraphrases not true translations. Examples would be the "Message"and also "The Living Bible."

As to a loving God casting his creation into Hell. One shudders. The best understandings suggest that God's mercy is in play in a place as far from his presence as possible is chosen by some and their choice is accommodated. God's love is in play in that We get to choose our destiny and the torment involved is the torment of eternal regret. However,I do not know the reason Hell exists. It is nevertheless a Biblical concept that we have to deal with. Some deal with it by accommodating it into their understanding of God and some can't.

We would all love a completely inclusive God but the Bible doesn't present us with one. It gives us an uncomfortable God and asks us to adjust ourselves to his reality.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Y'see, to me, "We would all love a completely inclusive God but the Bible doesn't present us with one. It gives us an uncomfortable God and asks us to adjust ourselves to his reality." means "God's actually a bit of a git; get used to it you soppy hippy."

Which is a shame, because I thought God was good, merciful, loving etc. You're telling me he's not, and I need to just get used to that. What a crap cosmos!

Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :

Plus, it raises the question of WHY we would like an inclusive God if God isn't really that way. Are we MORE loving and generous than God? I always fall back on Puddleglum's defense -- if what I am able to imagine is bigger, better, more glorious and, in this case, more generous than reality, I'm going to choose to believe that it's true.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Y'see, to me, "We would all love a completely inclusive God but the Bible doesn't present us with one. It gives us an uncomfortable God and asks us to adjust ourselves to his reality." means "God's actually a bit of a git; get used to it you soppy hippy."

Which is a shame, because I thought God was good, merciful, loving etc. You're telling me he's not, and I need to just get used to that. What a crap cosmos!

This is about the Bible right? You want to make it about something else? The cosmos? You're welcome. You want the Biblical God to be the God you want and that's also my problem.
Another way to look at it is that Biblically we don't cut the mustard with him but also Biblically he's created a loophole..Jesus, whereby we can. Not bad for a git.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
Plus, it raises the question of WHY we would like an inclusive God if God isn't really that way. Are we MORE loving and generous than God? I always fall back on Puddleglum's defense -- if what I am able to imagine is bigger, better, more glorious and, in this case, more generous than reality, I'm going to choose to believe that it's true.

Because we're us and he's him. What you choose to believe is your prerogative but imagine you are the Biblical God for a sec confronting a created being who simply says "You are not like who you say you are,mate,You are like I say you are." I think he'd just shake his head,back away and say,"OK, have it your own way. If you change you mind I'll be waiting."

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Y'see, to me, "We would all love a completely inclusive God but the Bible doesn't present us with one. It gives us an uncomfortable God and asks us to adjust ourselves to his reality." means "God's actually a bit of a git; get used to it you soppy hippy."

Which is a shame, because I thought God was good, merciful, loving etc. You're telling me he's not, and I need to just get used to that. What a crap cosmos!
This is about the Bible right? You want to make it about something else? The cosmos? You're welcome. You want the Biblical God to be the God you want and that's also my problem.
Another way to look at it is that Biblically we don't cut the mustard with him but also Biblically he's created a loophole..Jesus, whereby we can. Not bad for a git.

It's easy to see it that way if for you the whole Jesus story seems believable. But for me it's hard, especially some of the more unlikely details. For others, it's impossible. God, it seems, hides himself, he sets an impossible standard, he then creates a way around the problem he has just created by setting that standard but requires the jumping through of hoops, at no point providing sufficient data for a firm conclusion, except for a story that's easy to dismiss as cock-and-bull about a crucified hero rising from the dead.

I don't know anyone who's said "Cool, there's a loophole, that's great, but do you know I don't think I'll bother."

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Mudfrog:

quote:
If God loves the people who never believed in nor loved him - as he surely does - then to take them to heaven just because of his unilateral love speaks more of obsession, possessiveness and 'completing his collection' than of self-giving love.

Sometimes the reality of love is that it doesn't get what it thinks it wants.

You are also assuming that hell is equivalent to Dante's Inferno.
If hell were simply a place where God is not felt - darkness as opposed to light - what then? Is it the pictures of torment, torture and 'fire' that you object to? Would you be content for hell to simply be a place where people can exist for eternity as they have existed in life - as atheists - living with the consequences of their choice?

For me the key is...

quote:
For now we see in a mirror, dimly,[a] but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known. 1 Corinthians 13:12

If people reject the Godhead when they no longer see "dimly", yes, I'd be content with that. But to wager for eternity in this maelstrom of sin and chaos we experience as life, no, not really. I believe God is eternally the Father who waits for the prodigal children. Eternally. Not one who goes "Bzzzz! Wrong! Thanks for playing, now go straight to Hell". For...

quote:
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet only your brothers and sisters,[o] what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

[ 16. July 2014, 13:16: Message edited by: Lyda*Rose ]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

I think I meant what Lyda said better.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
[...] If people reject the Godhead when they no longer see "dimly", yes, I'd be content with that. But to wager for eternity in this maelstrom of sin and chaos we experience as life, no, not really. I believe God is eternally the Father who waits for the prodigal children. Eternally. Not one who goes "Bzzzz! Wrong! Thanks for playing, now go straight to Hell". [...]

Preach it. [Cool]

This hinges on whether the Bible is a human document, shot through with our human flaws and biases, or revelation that God protected from error.

Personally, well, put it like this: given the feelings of unworthiness he expresses time and again, I suspect that Paul of Tarsus would be horrified to see his housekeeping memos used as holy writ.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I think I meant what Lyda said better.

I hear you Buddy.

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :

Am catching up with this – good to see the discussion! If I may I'll take Jamat's points first in reverse order and may also be able to address other points raised along the way...

Post-modernism and relativity
It was certainly fashionable in the 1980s to interpret the writings of the French philosophers of post-modernism (not that they like those terms – philosophy and postmodern) as preaching that all is relative and that there is no foundation; no one overarching truth, no metanarrative. In effect, anything goes. A few theorists outside of France took this line up as a career, e.g., Stanley Fish at Duke and Chicago, or Paul de Man at Yale. In literary criticism this found expression in one type of reader-response criticism that espoused relativity in interpretation – it's all down to the reader.

What has happened since, though, has been interesting. Relativity as an argument seems to have run its course. It can still be found at a popular level, but no longer at a philosophical one. What caused this expiration might well have been a totally unexpected encounter between two of the greatest arch-enemies in this arena: Jacques Derrida (French exponent of deconstruction strategies) and Jürgen Habermas (German exponent of reason). For pretty much the entirety of their careers the latter defended the Enlightenment approach towards the attainment of knowledge, the former sought to undermine that approach. They had engaged in a quite bitter debate in published articles, with Habermas accusing Derrida of being childish and Derrida accusing Habermas of not having read his works at all. The normal give and take of scholarly debate, in other words.

Then in 1999 the two met at a mutual friend's house and decided that they should really get to know each other and meet to discuss their views properly. And pretty soon, too; they both were getting old. Thus began a very useful series of meetings and publications before Derrida died in 2004 that finally began to make sense (for me at any rate!) of post-modernism.

For our purposes here the main point to make is that Derrida – the fount of anti-foundationalism for all his disciples – said that he was not actually asserting that there was no such thing as one truth, but that the claims of so many since the Enlightenment (he would even go back as far as Plato) had not been properly grounded and were beset with biases that created distortions. This clarification makes sense: post-modernism was being descriptive rather than prescriptive. It was critiquing any approach to a text that ignored or was unaware of presuppositions. It pointed out that there was a world of diversity out there and that if one truth was to win the day it would have to get its hands dirty on the nitty gritty of interpretation. After all, to claim that there is no one overarching truth is actually to make an overarching truth claim. Relativity turns out to be relative after all.

So if the point of post-modernism was not relativity, but rather about diversity and the need to provide greater substantiation to support a metanarrative, then reader-response criticism should be what many literary theorists not at Yale or Chicago actually took it to be: an analysis into how readers read and what presuppositions they bring to a text. In this respect reader-response criticism corresponds to the deconstructive work of Derrida, in that it exposes the underlying structures that determine a reading (interpretation as eisegesis). It doesn't make a claim about relativism. I think this goes to address the concern deano raised earlier that all interpretation is fuelled by the reader. Yes it is open to a reader to impose their own interpretation on a text, but this doesn't deny that there is still a form of guaranteed meaning. It simply shows that the reader is lazy. Ditto for translators.

Worldview
I'm undecided whether our current predominant worldview (western Europe, N. American, etc) is post-modern or something else. There is an ongoing debate about whether we are living in a post-modern or a late modern world, but I don't think either categories quite adequately describe our condition. Given that the vogue of talking up relativism during the 1980s and 1990s seems to have gone away again, perhaps we are still children of the Enlightenment. I hesitate a bit here, though, because we are seeing a resurgence of interest in matters spiritual across the globe. The forces of materialism proved unable to quench this aspect of humanity, even in the Soviets and Cultural Revolution era. Whether it be swapping miniskirts for burkas in Egypt, or getting up at unearthly hours for the summer solstice at Stonehenge, or even humanists holding Sunday services, there is plenty of evidence that humans cannot be limited to mere materialism. Immanuel Kant was right – there are strict limits to the scientific approach to knowledge and there are areas over and above that where a different type of knowledge exists. It may be to the frustration of Richard Dawkins that this is so, but then, hey, we can't all be quite so limited in our thinking!

So there are elements of modernity and pre-modernity around us, along with diversity. This actually can be good news for Christianity.

Holy Spirit's role
Granted that the HS has a role to play in interpretation, I find it interesting that cases appear of interpreters who are accepted as being spiritual, but who reach mutually incompatible interpretations over the same text. This means that we need a method to validate interpretations. What would that look like?

The only viable offering here, in my opinion, remains authorial intention. Nothing else put forward thus far provides the public space within which to discuss approaches and test findings. This approach recognises the authority of the author, more so than the authority of the text, per se.

As a theological aside, taking authorial intention seriously provides in turn greater status to the author (it avoids relativism) and allows for inspiration (as the driver for a human output – a person is inspired who reflects deeply on God, how he acts and how he wants his people to live). If you like, the role of the HS in interpretation is to validate the output of an author, thus also validating the status of an author as made in the image of God and fulfilling the role of one who was representing God on earth. The text thus becomes sacred for a reader once the author is recognised. To leave it all the to reader is to diminish the author and mar the image.

Example of worldview transition
My pet theory is that “covenant” is the dominant worldview in the ancient near east. To translate this into modern speak requires an analysis of the key concepts and relationships in covenant (in the host language), then a mapping exercise to see if there are similar structures in the receptor language. I find that covenant still has relevance in modern times, especially among youth gangs. A useful starting place. I would try avoiding inherited terms that have acquired technical meanings in favour of more grounded terms. So, for example, swap out 'sin' for something like 'rebellion' (or anything in the 'treason' semantic domain) where that applies in the bible. Similarly drop terms like 'justification', gospel, and so forth. They can only confuse by carrying over the inherited encrusted weight of centuries informed by worldviews different from that of the biblical authors. Equally I see from the discussion above again that we need to very careful about using the English word 'love' as a translation of its Greek and Hebrew counterparts. It's too full of baggage from a different worldview and does not provide an adequate semantic overlap with the original terms. I suggest trying something like 'loyalty' instead. That better captures the covenant worldview-informed semantic content.

That's by way of background, really. I see there's more to engage with. May have to wait for weekend now.

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :

Getting at last to Jamat's first point: “All” in Romans.

Paul's introduction (1:1-7) sets the scene for what he wants to say. He is on a mission – authorised by God – to fulfil God's message-in-action (his euangelion = εὐαγγέλιον). This message is firmly rooted in the Jewish Scriptures, which means we cannot understand what Paul is saying without paying attention to how he uses those writings. The message-in-action is the Jesus who was also rooted in Judaism and now vindicated for his loyalty to God. The 'fulfilling' that constitutes Paul's mission is to effect loyalty (obedience) in turn among those outside of Judaism.

The full introduction runs:

quote:
1:1-7
Paul:
A slave of messiah Jesus, a called apostle, set apart for God's message. This message was promised a while ago by God's prophets in set-apart writings. It's about his authorised, appointed and anointed one, whose human ancestor was David, but who was appointed to be God's spiritual Loyal-One-in-Power when he was resurrected from death. This is the messiah Jesus, our master in God's court.

Through him we received a gift and also our mission to effect a believing obedience to Jesus among all the nations outside of Israel. You, too, are among that group – those in the nations set apart in loyalty to messiah Jesus.

To:
All those in Rome to whom God is loyal – the set apart ones – the gift and also the peace of God our father and our master messiah Jesus.

So my take on all this runs roughly as follows:

[1] Paul is writing from within his Jewish worldview, using verbal categories that were appropriate to that worldview.

[2] This means that the words he uses in the way he uses them are conditioned by that worldview.

[3] To properly understand him, therefore, we need to identify the worldview he is subject to, translate that into the modern setting (whatever that might be in whichever place) so that the actual words are translated in a way that minimises as much as possible the risk of contamination from the modern worldview(s).

[4] In Romans Paul is setting out a global, universal, story, which arises in the Jewish setting befitting the ancient near eastern covenant worldview. Ergo, when translating Paul's words one has to align the resultant output to covenant concepts and language use.

[5] Paul qualifies the “all” in Romans in covenant terms: the gift God has promised (validated and vindicated by way of Jesus' resurrection) is available to all universally, but on condition that there be a conscious and willing stance of loyalty to God through Jesus. In other words, loyalty to Jesus means loyalty to God (not the other way round).

Then of course Paul goes on to explain this in greater detail through Romans.

What are the implications?

If this is a correct understanding of Paul's intention, then we have at least got the “Where does the bible say...” in a sense. We do have to – as Oscar the Grouch said earlier – clarify what exactly “heaven” means as I suspect those referred to in the OP might not have quite the same covenantal view of that concept as Paul, but at least we can say for Paul that his consistent understanding involves a requirement that everyone in the universe is in a state of rebellion (and that they know this), and that each and everyone can opt back in to loyalty and so avoid the well known penalty for treason: death by execution.

The next implication would be that God, being a covenant God in biblical terms, is indeed a God who must sentence rebels to execution, even though he might have waited for yonks in hope that the rebels might come to their senses.

What does this mean for the concept of 'love'? I would have to say that the English range of meaning associated with that word fails to adequately cover off the semantic range associated with its putative counterparts in biblical Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Those equivalents are used within a covenant worldview, not a modern western one, and have to be translated with that earlier worldview in mind. Hence my feeling mentioned earlier that it might be easier to wrench ourselves away from the issues surrounding 'love' by not using that term at all when translating the bible. In other words, God is not a God of 'love'. Rather he is a God of loyalty.

Next and following implication: that can cause a challenge to one's paradigm! If one prefers the idea of a God of 'love', then one has to take some decisions around options. E.g.,:

[1] To try and live with the tensions caused between the semantic range of 'love' in English and the apparent mismatch between that and the actions attributed to God in the bible

[2] To ignore the elements in the bible that are contradictory, or try to explain them away (later addition, the author having an off day, scribal error, etc.)

[3] To opt out of the belief system associated with followers of Jesus (the Christian community) in favour of a different religion, or start up a new one. If especially the latter, then there would need to be a grounded explanation of the principles underlying this new belief system

[4] Undertake a paradigm shift and accept that the covenant worldview approach offers a coherent, consistent and simple explanation of all the biblical texts. Easier said than done, I admit, as these paradigm shifts involve swapping out the existing, inherent, comfortable, worldviews that have been the bedrock of one's upbringing.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M

What does this mean for the concept of 'love'? I would have to say that the English range of meaning associated with that word fails to adequately cover off the semantic range associated with its putative counterparts in biblical Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Those equivalents are used within a covenant worldview, not a modern western one, and have to be translated with that earlier worldview in mind. Hence my feeling mentioned earlier that it might be easier to wrench ourselves away from the issues surrounding 'love' by not using that term at all when translating the bible. In other words, God is not a God of 'love'. Rather he is a God of loyalty.

I think 'loyalty' is too narrow a term.

Jesus said we should love our neighbors as ourselves. The best interpretation I can come up with right now is that it is a requirement that we meet obligations. The obligations are defined elsewhere in the Bible.

Moo

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I also think loyalty is too narrow. Perhaps part of the problem is that people take "love" to refer mainly to the emotions, but in Scripture it refers mainly to the will and the actions--which can exist whether you have loving emotions toward the person or not.

Therefore I can love my enemy by doing good to him, watching out for his interests, refraining from harming him, etc. just as I would for my friend or relative--or self. The emotions don't come into whether it's really love or not--except as an accidental circumstance that makes the actions easier (or harder) to perform for me personally.

But from the point of view of the recipient, the emotions make no difference. In fact if I manage to love my enemy perfectly, he will either be freaked-the-hell-out (because he knows darn well I have reason to hate him, and can't figure out why my actions don't match that) or else he will be totally oblivious to my dislike of him.*

* please note that I'm not saying he will LIKE me, or that he will be happy with my actions toward him, or that he will understand that I am loving him (for example, by turning him in to the police). Rebuking, disciplining, opposing, etc. are all actions which a decent responsible person will have to take once in a while with regard to other people, whether friends or enemies. And the people who get rebuked, disciplined, opposed, etc. are not going to be happy about that, even when/though it's done in their own best interests.

But all that goes to show is that love sometimes means doing things that will make other people mad at you. Quelle** surprise.

** What a

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :

We're into the translation world of partial overlaps and therefore gaps here aren't we?

It's an issue that is nicely demonstrated by the Hebrew term hesed (= חֶסֶד), which occurs about 240 times in the Hebrew Scriptures. An example is repeated several times in Psalm 136 (“...for his hesed endures for ever”). It's one of those words that do not travel down the translation route into English easily. Assorted English versions have come up with:

Lovingkindness (NASB)
Steadfast love (RSV)
Love (NIV and others)
Mercy (NKJV)
Faithful love (VOICE)
Loyal love (NET)

Most versions are obviously grappling with an attempt to place the term in a covenant context of faithful relationships between two or more partners (senior and junior). There not being a single English equivalent makes this attempt tricky.

The Greek LXX versions opt to translate this Hebrew word with eleos (often translated 'mercy') in the main, with just a few occurrences of dikaiosune (often 'righteousness'), which reflects the translators' recognition that a 'love' term (e.g., agape) for this Hebrew word didn't really fit.

If I take that covenant setting as a starting point (and the world-view context behind it), then I would be very tempted to say that wherever that word occurs (and its Greek equivalents in the LXX and NT), that we need an English term from within semantic domain that surrounds 'loyalty' as a starting point. Examples from the domain include: fidelity, faithfulness, allegiance, obedience (though that feels more like a one-way street – the senior partner to a relationship is not really obedient to the junior), dedication, commitment... Then I think I would want to see the evidence from within specific contexts for deviating from that domain to use any other term(s).

That raises the question about the agape term. Where does that sit in the spectrum of domains?

Posted by Jude (# 3033) on :

Aha! So God indeed punishes people for not believing the correct things. If we believe the wrong things we are condemned (however so sincerely!).

Posted by Nigel M (# 11256) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jude:
Aha! So God indeed punishes people for not believing the correct things. ...

I'm not sure which god this is(!). However, as a matter of logic, I assume that if it (not being sure which god, I can't assume which gender) exists and has the character of one who/which punishes for believing wrong things, then it would follow that (assuming no interruptions of a mitigating nature) then indeed it condemns even those holding sincerely held wrong beliefs.

Some of the mitigating factors that could invalidate assumptions here would include:
* That it exists
* That it did not lie and was of sound mind when it established that incorrect belief required punishment
* That it did not change its mind

I'm not sure where I stand on the issue of gods popping into existence when someone thinks of them, but if this is true, then given that pretty much every Christian holds slightly divergent beliefs about God (scratch beneath the surface and you'd be surprised what people really believe!), there must be tons and tons of gods flitting about the naves, chancels, kitchens, and rented halls where Christians converge each week. Some of those gods probably believe that their worshippers believe right things whereas the people in the next seats don't and should be punished. So if a god believes that the person worshipping it on a Sunday morning is orthodox in belief, what happens if the person in question is not loyal? Is belief in the right things the same as loyalty to one's god?

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0