Gospel Editing Precludes Divine Inspiration

[dizerner]

One thing I think comes into play a lot more than people talk about is regeneration. There's no point in Moses giving a perfect description of morality, nor would he be able to since situations are fluid and dynamic, and since people were spiritually incapable and not reborn. Then we see the law as symbolic, and the Spirit highlights those parts of the Law, such as loving God and neighbor, that show us how much we lack truly fulfilling it. The rest of the law and all of Israel was to point to the Messiah as Savior of the world, and that's the whole point of it, and why it was a ministry of condemnation (introducing the concept of holiness and sin). Anyone throughout history that has been saved has been saved by grace through faith—and the Law, since it was clearly given accurately and affirmed by Jesus directly, not being a mistake, and not enabling or showing us morality, has to have a distinct purpose, a spiritual purpose: that purpose is to condemn and to point to Christ in symbolism. Once we understand that, and that the establishing of the nation of Israel was under a world with no regeneration, we see all of the Scriptures pointing to inward realities about our obedience to and salvation in Christ presently. Even NT morality we are told we cannot keep without regeneration, so how much more OT morality. The fact is this world is so fallen and broken that outward morality can never even be ever imposed or achieved. But I do think a real honest commitment to God, instead of simply trying to figure out in our natural mind what makes sense to our fallen cloudy way of thinking, will lead us to revelational truths we simply cannot reason our way to—indeed this is exactly what the Bible tells us. A world of perfect love would be a world free from sin, and that won't ever happen until all things are made new.

[psimmond]

Steve, I want to apologize for the "rolling eyes" emoticons in my last reply to you. They weren't meant in a disrespectful teenager eye rolling way, but I was using them to show that I thought the things being said about me were IMO bizarre. I probably should have paired them up with smiley faces to make that more clear.

I've studied the Bible intensely, I've lead numerous Bible studies, and I've lived as a missionary overseas for many years with my family. But because of one view I have expressed, I am now like Joseph Smith, probably not a Christian (since I have made myself Jesus' Master), etc.

To those who doubt my sincerity and my faith: I love God more now than I ever have and my desire to follow Christ has not lessened in any way. My number one goal in life is to be conformed to the image of Christ.

I'm not going to put any further effort into my appeal because it's God's opinion that matters most to me. Take it or leave it.

[steve]

psimmond,

Thank you for your service through the years.

Of course, neither our service through the years, nor the number of hours we have spent studying the Bible, has any role in determining whether we are being honest and responsible in our treatment of scripture or not.

If I, after 45 years of public Bible teaching, would now begin to teach another Jesus, as surely as Joseph Smith did, then anyone at any forum would become my benefactor in pointing it out to me.

You're welcome.

For me to decide that only God's opinion matters to me, without allowing Jesus' words to inform me of what God's opinion actually is, is really for me to decide that nothing but my own opinion matters to me.

[TheEditor]

Hi Steve,

Thanks for responses. You may have missed my preamble, and if so, I'll state it again:

Pardon the length and flow of my post. I am sort of thinking out loud, so my thoughts may be disjointed, and I am quoting verses from memory.

If the Law is not from God, then we have no compelling reason to believe that Jesus was from God either. If we cannot trust that Moses wrote accurately the things God gave Him to record, then we have no promises from God about Abraham's Seed, who was to come as a blessing to all nations. We know of no promise of a Scepter-holder from the tribe of Judah, nor of the coming of another Prophet, like Moses. Without trusting the writings of Moses as being from God, in fact, we have none of those Messianic prophecies, of which (as even Paidion acknowledges) Jesus fulfilled "every jot and tittle." Jesus, in this case does not come as the fulfillment of 2000 years of clear divine promises. Who knows? He might be nobody special, any more than Moses was.

Though perhaps convincing for a Jew, and subsequent, additional support for a Gentile that desires to study it, Christianity is based upon the Apostolic testimony of Jesus birth, life, death and resurrection. Moses role would likely be of little persuasion to a Greek Gentile. Personally, I "back-engineer" the Scriptures, meaning, if Jesus gives sanction directly to something, then I look to it as authoritative, if not, then it may still be. I do believe that "all inspired Scripture" is beneficial for teaching, reproving, setting things straight--for disciplining in righteousness. But salvation is missing from that list.

Abraham "believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness". Abraham missed the "obvious trajectory from Moses" requirement that you are apparently insisting on. I am aware of God's dealings with Israel and what they foreshadowed, and that it was a tutor to Christ. Sometimes though, I think in a desire to see all of God's ways as perfect, we defend things that are not necessary to defend. God may make accommodations for imperfect men, but they are just that--accommodations. Not grand righteous standards for which we are expected to go to the mattresses over.

This is not a case of a false prophecy by a true prophet, but a conditional prophesy, which God modified to accommodate the changed situation. Jonah must be removed from your list of examples for your point. Are there any others on the list?

I am well familiar with the account of Jonah. I didn't use the term "false prophet"; he did speak something that did "not come to pass." Jonah knew (apparently) that God would relent and was peeved by it, hence he ran away so that he wouldn't have 'egg on his face' as it were. And, he did end up with egg on it. I have no list of false prophets. Please reread my preamble. My point is that a divinely appointed medium can state things that do not come to pass--for whatever reason.

Righteous Lot got drunk and slept with his daughters. There is no direct censure by God in the account, however, the bastard sons that came as a result of this union produced two nations that continually hounded the descendants of Jacob.

There is no comparison between Lot and Moses, simply because Lot was not an inspired prophet, leader or writer of scripture, and no one ever claimed that Lot's words were the commandments of God, as Jesus said about Moses.

Please read preamble--again, and also the context of my rather casual insertion of Lot here, "I also look at what came as the result of certain actions and commands when I read the Scriptures"

Likewise the allowance to "take wives" of captured foreign virgins needs to be viewed in light of it's fruitage. Can anyone argue that the taking of foreign wives under any circumstance proved to be a positive thing for Israel?

We could ask Jesus whether any benefit occurred as a result of Salmon's marriage to Canaanite Rahab, or Boaz's marriage to Moabitess Ruth. My guess is that He could identify some little benefit to Israel and humanity stemming from His own incarnation, which came through those marriages

This is a thin argument on your part. These examples show, and would serve as evidence to Jews who were particularly ethnocentric, that God is indeed not partial, and can even have the Messiah come from the descendants of a harlot's womb. What a teachable thing for pious Jews. However, this is an exception to the natural fruitage of wholesale marriage to foreign wives. I shouldn't have to be telling you this.


The Scriptures mention the fact of "virgins" and their "comeliness." I certainly am not "fixated" on that in particular. God may have indeed "accommodated" this fallen nature, but why get all hot under the caller about the way they acted in defending it? But I do think it underscores the superficial nature of why the Jews took them. They were viewed as chattel and spoils of war. Why defend this?

Regards, Brenden.

[steve]

Hi Brenden,

I did not fail to read your preamble. Nor would my responses have been different had I not seen it. It is fine for you to back away, in your preamble, from arguments which you judge to possess questionable validity. That does not mean that I, or anyone else, should refrain from showing the errors which even you suspect to inhere in them.

You may be wise enough to doubt the validity of such arguments, but at a public forum like this one, we cannot count on such discernment being present in all who read them—as recent dialogues here give us abundant reason to suspect.

Therefore, you shouldn’t take my refutations as an attack on you. I don’t generally attack people. It is the arguments I am refuting. If you admittedly do not wish to stand by them, very well. There is no reason for anyone to get hot under the collar when poor arguments are shown to be poor arguments.

I am well familiar with the account of Jonah. I didn't use the term "false prophet"; he did speak something that did "not come to pass." Jonah knew (apparently) that God would relent and was peeved by it, hence he ran away so that he wouldn't have 'egg on his face' as it were. And, he did end up with egg on it. I have no list of false prophets. Please reread my preamble. My point is that a divinely appointed medium can state things that do not come to pass--for whatever reason.

My mistake. I had assumed we were trying to remain on topic. I don’t recall anyone claiming that every genuine prophecy needs to come to pass (this is refuted by God's own stated policy—Jer.18:7-10). Such a question would make an interesting, though altogether different, discussion.

The recent debate on this thread has been about whether a person who speaks in the name of Yahweh can be regarded as a genuine prophet when he is making stuff up that Yahweh never spoke, and with which Yahweh’s sentiments stand in violent disagreement. This is the position defended by Paidion and psimmond, and it is the only point I have been refuting. Jonah’s case cannot be relevant to this question, unless one is claiming that Jonah gave a prophecy in the name of Yahweh which was not actually Yahweh’s message.

The Scriptures mention the fact of "virgins" and their "comeliness." I certainly am not "fixated" on that in particular. God may have indeed "accommodated" this fallen nature, but why get all hot under the caller about the way they acted in defending it? But I do think it underscores the superficial nature of why the Jews took them. They were viewed as chattel and spoils of war. Why defend this?

A better question is, “Why assert this?”

There is nothing in these Deuteronomic laws that encourages chattel slavery, and, as I pointed out earlier, most of them are coming against the general ANE cultural tendency to view slaves as mere chattel. Why do you accuse the divinely-appointed law-maker of motives and beliefs that pagans exhibit, but which he never sanctions? Is this fair biblical reading?

Again, I ask you, why do you think physical attraction in marriage is an aspect of “fallen nature” that is merely to be “accommodated”? Are you assuming that God did not build sexual attraction into the first couple, even before there was a “fallen nature” to enjoy it?

I asked these questions in my last post—namely, if the objectors consider it a bad thing for a man to choose a wife whom he finds sexually attractive. The above response seems to be your way of answering this question. The others have yet to weigh in on this, but their earlier statements, along with their silence under questioning, might be construed as agreement—Qui tacet consentire videtur. You, at least, have been honest enough to weigh in on the side of the proposition that sexual attraction is a base thing in a marriage—a thing which should be condemned, or else merely tolerated with distaste. I am trying in vain to imagine anything other than this presupposition could spawn the specific objection you have raised.

Wise men, whether ancient Jewish or modern Christian, will choose wives for reasons additional to physical attraction. Even that old lecher Solomon knew that (Prov.31:10-23). But few men, however godly, initially pursue a mate without physical attraction being a serious consideration. In the man’s case (though not in the woman’s) he cannot even perform his reproductive duty without sexual attraction (I hope not to shock our female readers with this revelation, and I hardly think our male readers will find any disagreement at all on this point). As near as I can tell,

That's the way God planned it,
That's the way God wants it to be,

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah
(lyrics from Christian/secular rock star Billy Preston)

You speak as if you find this to be a disgusting phenomenon. I find no scriptural basis for your thinking so. Could this be a residual Jehovah’s Witness sensitivity that simply got baked-in from your youth? If so, I would strongly urge you to reconsider the validity of such a prejudice against God’s design. Of course, both psimmond and Paidion have also repeatedly expressed this same bizarre sentiments, without having JW backgrounds. We may never know what factors may have marred their sensitivities on this. It would be interesting to be a fly on the wall for that awkward conversation when they explain to their wives that they never found them physically attractive.

[Jason]

I've read every post in this long thread and it strikes me that the warring participants are not going to concede a single point. So forgive this intrusion from the sidelines, but it seems obvious that the scriptures Steve cited earlier do, in fact, prove that Jesus and Paul viewed the law and prophets as God-given. It takes a fair bit of mental gymnastics and cultural naval-gazing to deny that. When it comes to progressive revelation and a Christocentric reading of the OT, I'm totally on board. If we don't read the law and prophets in light of the revelation of Jesus then we will, of necessity, end up in error. Just like the ancient Jews and those who later preached Manifest Destiny.

Regarding Moses as some inept or barbaric figure is a proposition impossible to defend from any statement of Jesus or Paul. One could only arrive at this conclusion on the basis of cultural sentiments. I'm as culturally sensitive as your garden variety tree-hugging hippy, and yet I cannot allow modern sentiments to color the facts. For better or worse, Jesus endorsed Moses, as well as the law and prophets. If you think Jesus was mistaken or merely accommodating his audience, it's your choice to make. Jesus didn't know everything, but the things he did know came from his Father. If he was mistaken about that, we have no reason to follow him whatsoever.

There's a difference between admitting you don't know something (like the day and hour of his return) and endorsing a false idea (like the faithfulness of Moses). One makes you honest, the other a deceiver. Jesus was honest about what he didn't know. So when he made actual pronouncements, we have to take it on his authority that these came from his Father. Otherwise, why bother listening to anything he said? The mustard seed comment earlier strikes me as a rather bizarre challenge to this notion. It's such low hanging fruit that even a secular-minded person could knock it down it after a moment's thought.

I'll be the first to admit that some portions of the OT strike me as distasteful and hard to stomach. Like Jacob, we have to wrestle against God sometimes. And when we do, we often walk away blessed (and limping). But at least we're not being casual in how we regard Him. Saying, "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it" is simply taking the easy way out. And so is saying, "This is hard to deal with, so I'll just decide it's untrue." I think an honest approach is to wrestle fiercely until we gain insight. Steve's view makes sense in the context of a certain paradigm. Those who oppose his view don't see it because they reject his paradigm.

I'll now act as a prophet and declare that neither side will give an inch.

[dizerner]

I hereby give exactly one inch, proving you a false prophet. Loved what you said about wrestling with God.

[Paidion]

Jesus said, "the scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35). What should be obvious is that we cannot tinker with a few parts of scripture without undermining confidence in the whole of it—since the writers expressed confidence in, and depended upon the trustworthiness of each other.

Steve, how do you define "scripture"? Is "scripture" those writings and only those writings which happen to be in Protestant Bibles?

You once said to a Catholic that you did not accept the "canon of scripture" because early Catholics defined the canon, but rather because of internal evidence.
Please tell me what internal evidence leads you to accept the book of Esther as scripture, while rejecting the book of Judith as scripture.

[Homer]

Steve commented:

Imagine how much worse the censure would have been had Moses been falsely prophesying and totally convoluted the picture of God's nature by writing evil laws in the name of Yahweh—as some of our participants here believe he did! Why didn't God bring any of these things up when explaining why Moses would not be allowed to enter the land? Had Moses successfully concealed these forgeries from the eye of the Almighty?

This strikes me as an irrefutable argument. I would like to see an answer from any who disagree with Steve's position (which is mine also).

Brenden wrote:

Christianity is based upon the Apostolic testimony of Jesus birth, life, death and resurrection.

I do believe a person without access to the Old testament can be a very good Christian but I do not think we can devalue the importance of the coming of the Messiah which is rooted in the OT.

[dizerner]

This strikes me as an irrefutable argument.

If you don't apply any kind of trustworthiness to the text you can really literally speculate anything at all.