Unfortunately I think that it's largely a matter of interpretation what "His will" actually is, and this makes conforming your will to His a greatly difficult task.

Seems to me the author is sad that Christians are not conforming to the author's idea of what God's will is.

Ah, the old "that's just your interpretation" charge.

Seems to me the commenter does not understand that the author's idea of "what God's will is" is not only not unique, it is not a minority view.

Those who most often claim "that's just your interpretation" do so from outside the greater tradition and history of biblical interpretation.

But to make his comment more than just a pithy snipe, the commenter should demonstrate, based on the biblical text, how his interpretation is superior to the author's.

Good stuff, I was with you, nodding and saying, yeah yeah up until you talked about changing our hearts, because I'm not sure how that's so radical that they would have killed Jesus either. Don't other religions teach changing the heart? I think the key is where you ended, with the will of God and the kingdom of God.

"The peace, love, and good vibes hippie-Jesus most people think of when they think of Jesus is not Jesus at all. That's a caricature, a cartoon. It fails to grasp fully what Jesus meant when he spoke of peace and love and doing good. It wasn't about feelings or being nice or tolerating others. It was about conforming our will to God's and about choosing to live our lives within His kingdom."

And what's so radical about that? It's that the values of the kingdom of God are often antithetical to common sense or hippie values or even the values of being a good citizen. Again, good stuff, I just want to push you to take it further.

I don't know, Jared, I think you're being a little hasty in dismissing Hobo here. I interpret his comment as saying he thinks you're the coolest and he's coming over this Saturday to mow your lawn.

I was with you, nodding and saying, yeah yeah up until you talked about changing our hearts, because I'm not sure how that's so radical that they would have killed Jesus either.

My point about "the heart" was not that that was why they killed Jesus. It was about how changing our hearts is infinitely harder than just changing our behavior.
I'm sure we'd agree that Jesus wasn't killed for just one reason. There were a variety of motives at play: that he was a blasphemer, that he made himself out to be God, that he challenged the institutional order of things, that he was interpreting all of the pillars of the Jewish faith in the light of himself, that he predicted the destruction of the temple, etc etc.

My point about changing the heart and my point about why Jesus was killed are connected, but they aren't the same. Sorry for the confusion. Should have revised before posting.

The Pharisees would be angry about Jesus' teaching on the heart, though. There's a reason why he made it a point to say he wasn't abolishing the Law, only fulfilling it. The reason is because it sure sounded like he was abolishing the Law!
But throughout the Sermon on the Mount, as I know you know, the emphasis is on the heart and character birthing obedience and conformity to life inside the kingdom. This is contrasted with the typical Pharisee's practice of "outward appearances." Which is why Jesus called them whitewashed tombs.

Alan, that's just your interpretation.

Jared, incredible post. Thank you.

Re: Jennifer's comments. I understood/interpreted Jared to mean that people can change outward appearance. But only God can change a heart. That's why what Jesus required was so much harder, even impossible. Am I accurate, Jared?

Hobo, see above. If the reader believes that the author meant something different than the author actually meant, then the reader is wrong.

And I really enjoy having you on the site. Having your input is FAAAAR better than having totally like minded people just say "amen" to each other. You force us to think, rethink and sharpen our ideas and presentation. It's also a lot more interesting. And fun.:)

I understood/interpreted Jared to mean that people can change outward appearance. But only God can change a heart. That's why what Jesus required was so much harder, even impossible. Am I accurate, Jared?

Yes, but I was purposefully trying not to wear my Calvinism on my shirtsleeve here for fear of the tangents stressing "only God can change a heart" might create.

Btw, if anyone wants to mow my lawn, I'd love to have them. I have to do it tonight, and I'm dreading it big time.

Great post. I have nothing to add. Yet.

I will do lawns upon request. But only if I interpret that request to mean I should mow someone's lawn.

Jared, sorry about the snipe-ness. And the pithiness. I realize that kind of post might encourage people to respond and dialog might get created (thank you, Shrode) but it's also fairly lightweight and almost pointless in of itself.

I agree about the Jesus cartoon. I see him as a progressive social-justice warrior ala Ghandi. A revolutionary who stirred up trouble. That might be just as shrinky-dink image as the flower-toting hippie Jesus, but my version at least has cause for execution.

I agree also that most modern Christians are not obeying the call to follow the will of God (as described by X, Y or Z). But I see this as a good thing. Our interpretation of God's will has been changing over time. Look at the many historical examples of "This is God's will" that we look back at and see only human error. How is that we think now, 2000 years after he died, that we have finally figured it all out?

I agree also that most modern Christians are not obeying the call to follow the will of God (as described by X, Y or Z). But I see this as a good thing.

How can not following the will of God ever be a good thing? If our definition of "God's will" has actually changed over time -- and I'm not agreeing it has -- that would be a grievous error, something the Bible calls "sin."

I see him as a progressive social-justice warrior ala Ghandi. A revolutionary who stirred up trouble.

On what evidence do you arrive at this conclusion? I guess from the same source I arrive at mine. But if this is so, how do you skip over all the crazy stuff about Jesus essentially claiming to be God and the true Messiah-King?
That'll get you killed by the religious elite and the knee-jerk government a whole lot quicker than just wanting to make sure poor Jewish folks have their "rights."

Look at the many historical examples of "This is God's will" that we look back at and see only human error. How is that we think now, 2000 years after he died, that we have finally figured it all out?

Well, I don't think the general Christian idea of "God's will" has changed since 2000 years ago. I suspect that you are thinking of some of the actions made by Christians over the years that they have called "God's will." The Crusades, the Inquisition, etc. etc. ad nauseam.

That's not exactly what I have in mind.

When I refer to the biblical concept of God's will (as expressed through Jesus), I mean the specific call to abandon the life of sin in "this world" and apprentice ourselves to Jesus in God's world. This includes, among a host of other things, believing that what Jesus said is true (all of it, not just the feel-good parts) and obeying the commands and exhortations of Scripture.

That concept of God's will has been the consistent understanding of the Church for 2000 years. Christians have always believed that Jesus died, not just because he was a revolutionary of social justice, but because he was paying the price for the sin of mankind and opening up the door for reconciliation between God and His children. Accepting the invitation to follow Jesus means a heck of a lot more than just being nice and tolerant and loving towards everyone; it means a repentance from a life of sin and a commitment to life within the constructs of God's kingdom.

I don't claim to have it "all figured out." But I feel pretty good about my understanding of God's will in that regard, because it is the understanding of the majority of Christians, of the Church, and of the Church since the first century.

Very cool post and discussion.

I would not blame modern Christians for not being willing to follow Jesus. Instead, I blame modern Christianity for impotence.

Somewhere a 50 year old Jewish man heard Jesus speak. This old man had attended every sacrifice, tithed to support the Levites, and given the best of everything he owned all his life, out of terror of God. He feared God because the Pharisees had taught him that God was terrifying, and that only they could save him. Now, for the first time, he looked at a Carpenter who told him that he could be like his Father in heaven. His Father...! In heaven...!

That man never listened to a Pharisee again.

Jesus was killed because he wrecked the power structure of some very powerful men. The average Jew heard about John's message in the wilderness, and thought about turning away from the pharasaic "serpents" and repenting (still more.) When the people heard Jesus, though, they whipsawed from repentance to joy, and the power of the Sanhedrin was devastated. Their hearts were transformed, and in the process they were freed.

Those Jewish elders had ascended as high on the ladder as Caesar would allow, and they could not let some populist pretender break their racket ... Oops. I mean, they would allow "no heretic to devour the flock of God." The sword was the only answer they had left.

The hierarchy of the world is built on power, and the church is just that same hierarchy with a robe on.

jared, fabulous post. but please, don't be irked by folks asking how one part of your religion is consistent with another part. Seems like a fair question to me, especially given that you are clearly aquainted with both logic and scripture, and are therefore likely to have an answer. it should be possible to ask without implying your ignorance, nor the questioner admitting his.

it is true that the mainstream american culture has simplified christianity -- it simplifies everything. christianity is (or was) a principle component of the american mainstream, so had to be made palatable to the masses; it is with this palatable jesus that anyone not from a religious family grows familiar. A palatable jesus is terrifyingly dangerous because he gives the values of the culture du jour the moral authority of God. I'd rather have no jesus at all than a manipulated jesus.

your point about automatically doing good deeds is fascinating, and ties in with something i've been pondering privately for a while: who is better, the man who naturally and easily, automatically, does good deeds, working on behalf of the poor, bravely opposing tyranny and injustice etc.; or the man who desperately aims for the ideal, but struggles with his own selfishness and dark impulses. While people might be free (to an extent), they are surely bound by their nature (again to an extent). When a man is judged, is there any difference between his choices and his nature?
you've mentioned calvin, and i am vaguely aware that his ideas contradict free will. is that a total lack of free will, or is it that one's nature keeps ones freedom quite tightly bound?

Well, I hate to get into a Calvin/Arminian discussion on his thread. That is so 2003. ;-)
But, yes, in a nutshell, the 5-Point Calvinism I subscribe to asserts that because man is born into a sinful nature, he is not free to choose God and the salvation He offers of his own volition. It's not that he wants to and can't. He doesn't want to, for the very fact that he has a sinful nature that is at enmity with God.

I believe that God changes the heart of those He has chosen, freeing them to choose Him.

The idea of free will is a generally good one, and I don't wish to suggest that man's choices aren't real. That's why I usually choose to discuss free-will/predestination in the context of the question of salvation; it tends to keep the convo from going down the tangents of fatalism or automatons and what-not.
Basically I believe man always chooses what he wants. We choose based on our desires or what seems most beneficial at the time. Because I believe sinful man does not want God, I believe he cannot choose God until God has chosen him and awakened him to have the desire for God.

who is better, the man who naturally and easily, automatically, does good deeds, working on behalf of the poor, bravely opposing tyranny and injustice etc.; or the man who desperately aims for the ideal, but struggles with his own selfishness and dark impulses.

I wouldn't say either is better than the other. I'm not in a position to decide who is better, nor would I want to be.
But given the example of one man, I can say what sort of life would be better for him than other options. The two scenarios you provide above say nothing about which man is a follower of Jesus as understood by orthodox Christianity. If it's neither, than neither is better than the other. They are equally in trouble, eternally speaking.

I would rather be a saved person struggling with my sin and "dark impulses" (especially since I don't think unsaved persons really believe in sin -- do they?) than an unsaved person doing good deeds for even the highest humanistic reasons (to be a good person, to better the world, etc.). The Bible says there is no one good, and I believe it. All efforts at goodness we make apart from God are ultimately vain.

My point about automatically doing good deeds is not meant to suggest that such a transition is easy (or automatic!). It is the difficult matter of character change which begins when God changes a heart and when a person pursues the holiness God's Word demands. The closer we follow Jesus, the more we will be like Him, and therefore the more automatic doing good deeds will be. But the doing of good deeds is not to be a good person or to better the world or anything like that merely -- if it is not for bringing glory to God, it is for nothing. Jesus said to do our good works before men that they might glorify our Father in heaven. Not so that they might make us "better people." That might be a happy benefit, but it is not the aim.

please, don't be irked by folks asking how one part of your religion is consistent with another part. Seems like a fair question to me

As far as I understand it, that sounds like a good question to me, also. But I don't think it was asked of me. The initial response from Hobo seemed more along the lines of "you've got it wrong" or "how do you know you've got it right?" than "How does that jibe with such-and-such?".

If you -- or anyone -- would like to know how my interpretation of God's will relates or fits in with another passage in Scripture you think contradicts it or makes it suspect, feel free to ask.

Jared,

First, thanks for the chat :).

Ok-

How can not following the will of God ever be a good thing? If our definition of "God's will" has actually changed over time -- and I'm not agreeing it has -- that would be a grievous error, something the Bible calls "sin."

This is important.

First: if the will of God were spelled out in the Bible in a clear way, there would be very little question over the hundreds of years what this will of God was. But we have hundreds of thousands of denominations (as an example) today that all feel they know what the will of God actually is. But they can't all be right.

Second: I can take three people who know nothing about Christianity. I can put them in a room and have them read the Bible - with no instruction. I think I'm safe in saying all three would come out of that room with different interpretations about what the will of God means.

Third: at the beginning of the church, when the power struggles in Rome over the Papacy were starting, there were many, many groups claiming to understand the will of God wandering around, spreading their teachings. The church made a huge effort to wipe those other strains out... but their existance indicates that the will of God was unclear - at least to some - even at that time.


Since it appears, despite many people claiming to know the will of God, that people do interpret the Bible in many, many differing ways... that I can deduce that the Bible is in fact somewhat unclear about the will of God.

In my opinion, if God is going to condemn people for not understanding - or knowing - or misunderstanding - these apparently somewhat unclear writings... then maybe the gnostics were right afterall.

I meant to put this in too, sorry :)

When I refer to the biblical concept of God's will (as expressed through Jesus), I mean the specific call to abandon the life of sin in "this world" and apprentice ourselves to Jesus in God's world. This includes, among a host of other things, believing that what Jesus said is true (all of it, not just the feel-good parts) and obeying the commands and exhortations of Scripture.

I agree that most churches today pick and choose which scripture to reference.

When I talk about the will of God in the context of interpretation, I'm refering to what I think of as the "rules of the game". How to obtain salvation, I guess. And we should be able to agree that this one tiny bit of the Bible - the rules of the game - are not agreed upon among Christians.

Hobo:

Certainly, many things in the Bible are less than clear to us. But what is that a commentary on-- the Bible, or us?
You have ignored one variable: the recipient of the message. The Bible tells us we are rebels against God. We consider his words foolishness. When he redeems us, he makes us able and willing to following him. Until we die, we live a war against the vestiges of this rebellious past. You may disagree with this, but remember you're arguing that the Bible is unclear, and therefore suspect as a guide; you have to consider the evidence from within the Bible anticipating this charge and responding to it.

More to the point here (in the context of Jared's post), I don't see anything in what he says that is controversial among those who have seriously read the NT. Many people have their own ideas about who Jesus is-- but those are ideas are not from the Bible. For that, one must assume that we have an inaccurate or incomplete report on the teachings of Jesus. One gets to gnosticism by going down that path, not through the Bible.

To take your listed points in order:

1) There is much disagreement within Christian circles. Most of it does not even tangentially relate to the challenge of Jesus as Jared articulated it. Many issues do involve the moral will of God. A lot of the divergence centers around additions to the Bible-- from formal traditions added to the Bible to American evangelical unacknowledged tradition, which are evidence of sin, not of the Bible's inherent murkiness. Some of it is through partly our sin, and partly the true difficulty of sorting through sixty-six books not written directly to us in order to ascertain the will of God. I, for one, think it's pretty cool that God, in his good providence, gave us such a challenge to work through in order to figure out how to serve him-- one which lets me learn from (and teach) both my grandparents and my children; one which I will not have conquered should I live another hundred years.

2) This is really interesting. You say that you could put three people in a room, give them a Bible, and get three opinions. Doubtless you could. But part of the premise is wrong. You can't put three people in the room who know nothing about Christianity, because creation reveals God to everyone. And everyone you put in that room, either in diapers, a tuxedo, or Depends, would either be a rebel against God and inclined to distort his word or a follower of God inclined to heed it, though tempted to distort it as well.

3) The church in its early years was hardly the powerhouse it is now, so it really didn't have an institutional clout to stomp out competing sects. What it did have was apostles and their writings, which of their own force blunted the assault of gnosticism. Without the backing of Rome for a considerable time, the church flourished as an outlaw cult. The gnostics were around in the early stages, but didn't write contemporaneously with the apostles, and so it's hardly the case that there were two groups following Jesus from the beginning, one of which crushed the other through imperial force.

As to your last post, narrowing the scope a bit, I would say that all Christians who are serious students of the Bible (most are not)-- across denominational lines-- would agree that salvation is God's free gift, set up by the life, death, and resurrection of Christ; that it comes to one who trusts in Christ to rescue him from rebellious misery; that this trust is accompanied by a transformed heart which desires to follow God in this life.

Alan, thank you for saving me the needlessly verbose response I had been cooking up in my head all the time my wife and I had been watching disc one of the "Dinner for Five w/ Jon Favreau" DVD tonight.

I would reiterate your final words to Hobo's reiteration of different views of God's will within Christendom.
There are many different Protestant denominations for a reason. Yes, there are as many different perspectives as there are persons. But you'd be hard pressed to find a Christian or Christian church that would disagree with my basic statement about God's will for salvation.

My good friend and fellow Thinkling Kenny and I differ on some pretty significant issues in our personal theologies; mainly because I am a Calvinist and he is a Free-Will Baptist. But we'd both agree that God's will for salvation hinges on the atoning work of Jesus Christ. We are unified by the essentials of Christian faith.

And you could walk down the street, interviewing the ministers in every different church you encountered -- Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptists of all stripes, etc. -- and find them all surprisingly unified on the idea that salvation comes through the work of Jesus Christ on the cross and out of the tomb. We all might differ on how that atoning work is applied or how it works itself out in our lives, but the essential thing is essential to all, including Catholicism.

Are you familiar with the dictum "In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity"? I think most Christian churches, organizations, and denominations have a pretty good handle on that. I may disagree with a friend on the non-essential issue of speaking in tongues, but we grant each other liberty in that issue, and celebrate that we are unified by our common belief in Jesus Christ.

To be blunt: Your take that Christians are widely varied on God's will for salvation is wrong. We basically all believe that a) sin separates us from God and b) Jesus' sacrifice saves us from that sin and earns us eternal life.

Alan, Jared- thank you both for the response. What you said makes sense; I'm familiar with the outline you provided.

Jared wrote:

We basically all believe that a) sin separates us from God and b) Jesus' sacrifice saves us from that sin and earns us eternal life.

These are certainly the facts as I was taught as a child.

And you could walk down the street, interviewing the ministers in every different church you encountered -- Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptists of all stripes, etc. -- and find them all surprisingly unified on the idea that salvation comes through the work of Jesus Christ on the cross and out of the tomb.

But Catholics believe in salvation by works, don't they? I'm really not an expert, but it doesn't seem to be the same to me.

And I'm pretty sure a lot of churches shy away from eternal damnation (the other side of that coin) which I take to mean that Jesus's sacrifice (according to these teachings) is not about saving us mortals from brimstone.

I agree with you both that most churches will use the same words to describe the core beliefs... but I can't help but feel like they don't mean exactly the same thing in all Christian churches.


Alan wrote;

You can't put three people in the room who know nothing about Christianity, because creation reveals God to everyone. And everyone you put in that room, either in diapers, a tuxedo, or Depends, would either be a rebel against God and inclined to distort his word or a follower of God inclined to heed it, though tempted to distort it as well.

I think this is fascinating (too), really. I've met people who got around the whole torturing-innocents-for-eternity problem by suggesting that every human ever born is at some point given the chance to be a Christian. This might not be exactly what you're saying, because knowing God by looking at a flower and knowing Jesus because every African ever born actually meets at least one White preacher... are not the same to me. One seems possible, one just ... doesn't. I'd be interested to read more about your thoughts on this one.

But Catholics believe in salvation by works, don't they? I'm really not an expert, but it doesn't seem to be the same to me.

Well, I'm not an expert in Catholicism either, and I'd grant you that the difference between any given Prot denom and Catholicism would be much, much greater than most differences between any two Prot denoms.
But I do believe that what you're getting at fits into my point about how Christ's atoning work is applied. Again, I'm not a Catholic expert, but I'd suspect the stressing by Catholicism on the Eucharist and baptism (as well as a few other things, I guess) as necessary for receiving Christ's atoning work is radically different than your average Presbyterian's.

The main idea, though, is that it is Christ's atoning work that saves us. How and when we receive that work, how it is applied to us, is where the differences come pouring in. But that fundamental idea, the idea that salvation from sin comes from the work of Jesus on the cross, is common to all Christianity. And it's not a matter of mere words, of just everyone agreeing on a statement provided it's ambiguous enough. We all really and sincerely believe that Jesus' sacrifice is salvific.

And I'm pretty sure a lot of churches shy away from eternal damnation

Sure, some do. John Stott, a pillar scholar of the evangelical community, a guy who wrote a book on the basics of the Christian faith, is an annihilationist. Basically that means he believes those who die unsaved will be ultimately obliterated out of existence and suffer no eternal conscious punishment.
Obviously his view is a minority one. And while I personally disagree with it, I don't think it heretical. The nature of hell or the afterlife is a non-essential. Or, at least a non-essential when it comes to saving faith.

The unifying idea is that the salvation Jesus' work provides is a salvation from some unfortunate end, some punishment occurring at the point of "game over." That Stott thinks that unfortunate end a total annihilation of the soul and a missing out of spending eternity with God and that I think that unfortunate end a total separation from God and a spending of eternity in the torment of hell does not affect our mutual understanding of God's will for salvation.

but I can't help but feel like they don't mean exactly the same thing in all Christian churches.

It's likely they don't, but I think the differences are in how Jesus' work is applied, not on the basic facts of the matter.
Moreover, your initial objection to my posted thoughts had to do with everyone having different interpretations of God's will. Your present objections are different from your earlier one.

My claim is based on a unified idea over the last 2000 years of Christendom. The details will differ, of course. The application will differ, as well. But the basic thrust of the truth claim is universal and is what makes those calling themselves "Christian" part of the Christian religion. Your idea that the interpretations on God's will are so diverse as to be chaotic and disunified even within Christendom still doesn't hold.

Even if all the different interpretations are what keep you from trusting any one interpretation, doesn't the fact that we all pretty much believe Jesus' work was about more than "social justice" give you pause? Isn't there something to the reality that, despite all our differences and fighting and stressing of this bit over that bit, we all believe salvation from sin comes through Jesus Christ?

If it wasn't a deep mystery, would anyone even be interested in it at all?

To believe, I need to become as a little child. I remember as a kid, my dad would say 'get in the car, we're going to the lake'. I didn't think to ask 'how does the car work, how do we get there, who's coming with us, what will we do when we get there, etc.' I left that to dad, who said 'get in the car, we're going to the lake'.

I'm not a child anymore, hopefully I've put childish things behind me. But, I do hope I'll never lose the childlike quality of accepting the mystery.

How did the discussion drift so far from "knowing His will?"

Sure, we call ourselves Christians because we all believe in the work of Christ, but the original point was that Jesus isn't groovy. Hobo's first comment, and I still think it is a valid one, is that people live out their Christianity differently.

Beyond knowing the Father, and Jesus Christ Whom he sent, God's will is not clear. The history of our faith about seals that as fact. Running back to our minimum point of agreement should not be used to gloss that over.

Kevin, I don't believe I've glossed over anything. I did touch on Hobo's initial point about how people doing God's will seem to be doing all sorts of different things and therefore making God's will a hard thing to find. I said that obviously there will be as many interpretations as there are persons. But I don't see how "finding God's will for my individual life" is much of a concern in this thread. The discussion has narrowed into God's will for salvation -- God's will for everyone -- which was sort of the point of my post.

We can talk about God's will "for my life" if you'd like. No problem there. We've done that before on this site and it's always an interesting topic.
I'm not sure that's what Hobo was really getting at, but he can certainly clarify it for me.

Beyond knowing the Father, and Jesus Christ Whom he sent, God's will is not clear.

I really disagree. If you mean, God's will for your life, I suppose that could not be clear to you. Certainly I wouldn't really be able to tell you which college God wants you to go, what career He wants you to have, which person He wants you to marry, how many kids He wants you to have, etc. Is that what you mean?

If it is, I guess I agree that God's will can be unclear. But if it's not, I'd say that God's Word is not given to us so as to confuse us into an intellectual stupor. What God's will is for the lives of His followers seems fairly clear to me from Scripture.

The moral Law. The Great Commandment. The Great Commission. The instructions in all of the epistles.
It seem fairly clear to me that the Bible is fairly clear on what we must do. It doesn't tell me if I should be a stay-at-home dad or not, but it does tell me how I should act and live in that scenario.

There's also this from Paul, a passage I like to quote in the "What's God's will for my life?" convos:
Be joyful always; pray continually; give thanks in all circumstances, for this is God's will for you in Christ Jesus.
-- 1 Thessalonians 5:16-18

Jared,

You make a good case for everyone agreeing on the same basic facts. I won't continue to debate this just because ultimately I see variations and your faith is based on the idea of a core belief system - I have no interest in trying to undo that.

I think "God's will" in the course of this discussion might have begun as meaning "what God is telling us in the OT/NT" but became focussed to be "what does God say about salvation?". If I expanded the definition of "god's will" back out to encompass the entirity of the Bible would you still hold that there is no variation?

My original point is tied to this, I think (hope). If scripture *can* be interpreted in a variety of ways, then God's will (ie what does God want for us far as we can tell from reading the Bible) has to be declared unclear. Which means (to me) that anyone talking about God's will as though they hold the Truth in their hands... is just talking about the truth as they understand it.

There's also this from Paul, a passage I like to quote in the "What's God's will for my life?" convos:
Be joyful always; pray continually; give thanks in all circumstances, for this is God's will for you in Christ Jesus.

I think Paul would have been greatly surprised to learn that his letters to friends were now considered holy writ. I guess we can all be thankful that it wasn't Benny Hinn running all over Rome teaching Christianity to the gentiles.

I think Paul would have been greatly surprised ...

Nah. He knew he was writing instructions to churches, and he knew those letters were getting passed around and treasured even back then. Same with Peter's.
If you are interested, there are excellent texts available demonstrating the self-attestation of Scripture and how even the earliest church considered the letters of the apostles as holy writ.

If scripture *can* be interpreted in a variety of ways, then God's will (ie what does God want for us far as we can tell from reading the Bible) has to be declared unclear.

Then I suppose the fundamental breakdown between our two views is whether or not we think it can be interpreted in a variety of ways.
I would say that, yes, lots of people DO interpret it in a variety of ways. But I would say that that doesn't mean the Bible is open to those interpretations. The biblical authors meant something when they wrote something. They had a specific message or a point to get across. Just like when you originally wrote that the Bible is unclear, you didn't mean you were going to come mow my lawn this Saturday.

To what extent can we get at what the Bible really says? I think we can get at it to a very good extent, that in fact God has given us His Word not to confuse us, but because there are things about Him and His plans that He wants us to know. I understand if such a leap is beyond where you are right now, but I think the fundamental priciple that authorial intent is not relative is an important one that most people, when it comes right down to it, would agree with.
Otherwise, there'd be no point in our even discussing this, right? I mean, if comprehending the meaning of a person's writing is hopeless, why are we even thinking we might express ourselves properly to each other?

Just as an experiment in my point:
When you read that excerpt from 1 Thessalonians I provided, how many different interpretations do you think can be gleaned from that?
Okay, how many correct interpretations do you think can be gleaned from that? It seems to me that it is fairly straightforward -- be joyful always, pray continually, give thanks in all circumstances. If the Bible says that is God's will, that doesn't seem very unclear to me.

And the fact that just about all of Christendom agrees on the basic facts of God's will for man's life seems very important to me. I don't know why you and Kevin insist that is glossing over something. That is a huge point, as far as I can see it. If all these different people at least agree on this one, big point, surely that point earns a whole lot of weight, right?
I mean the basic facts we are all agreed upon are the most important ones -- sin is killing us, Jesus' sacrifice can save us. If hammering on that is glossing over the non-essentials, I'll take it. Too many people gloss over the essential, if you ask me.

Jared,

When you read that excerpt from 1 Thessalonians I provided, how many different interpretations do you think can be gleaned from that?
Okay, how many correct interpretations do you think can be gleaned from that? It seems to me that it is fairly straightforward -- be joyful always, pray continually, give thanks in all circumstances. If the Bible says that is God's will, that doesn't seem very unclear to me.

This is a good example. A lot of people would simply say: why should I believe that 1) Paul wrote this and that 2) Paul somehow knew God's mind. Just because Paul tells me "this is God's will" (my original point) does not make it so.

And the fact that just about all of Christendom agrees on the basic facts of God's will for man's life seems very important to me. I don't know why you and Kevin insist that is glossing over something.

I don't think that you're glossing over anything. I agree that this is important - I just don't agree with your conclusion. That's ok; it doesn't make any sense to try to keep convincing each other. I see variation even in the core message; to me this is evidence of a clarity problem. You feel that there is enough agreement among all churches for the stragglers to be discounted in terms of interpretation. I understand your point :).

Oops, again:

If you are interested, there are excellent texts available demonstrating the self-attestation of Scripture and how even the earliest church considered the letters of the apostles as holy writ.

I think this kind of documentation would be a few steps ahead of where I'm at. Right now I'm researching the non-literalist interpretations. After that I'm going to look at the other side (Evidence in search of a verdict) and go from there. Maybe after that I'll ask you :)

Hobo, you have several objections. That's fine. But we have to deal with them one at a time. When Jared asks what's ambiguous about the passage, it sends the discussion in a different trajectory to question the authority of scripture. It's rather like the two of us going out for a round of golf and betting drinks on the outcome. If we're disputing the score, that's one discussion; if you're claiming afterwards that the bet is invalid because the turf on which we were hitting balls was actually a cattle ranch and not a golf course, that's something else. It may be relevant to the bet, but it's a separate question.

For us together to evaluate your core claim-- that the scriptures are inherently ambiguous as to the moral will of God-- then we have to step inside scripture and assume its truth. We have to give it a test drive. And doing that, we're saying (1) the core claims of the faith are unambigously stated in scripture, as the Thessalonians example above (2) scripture recognizes your objection, and accounts for it principally by explaining how our rebellion against God affects both the human will and human intellect, and (3) beyond that, variations typically involve beliefs that are peripheral to the faith.

Now, to move your objection to another field. What about numbers? The recent Enron and Worldcom scandals have given us fertile ground for discussion. Numbers were twisted and used to accomplish immoral results. Nobody takes this as a reason to throw away bank statements or mortgage calculations. We recognize that with sufficient intelligence and training, a moral person can make an accounting in a way understandable by another similarly trained person. The more complex the calculations, the more likely that honest experts can disagree. It's the same with theology (but with theology, the moral aspect can never be eliminated). It's not an objection to accounting that people can't reconcile their bank statements. Many people don't care to pay attention or learn. In the same way, most people don't "reconcile" their inventory of moral beliefs and behavior. That's not an objection to the faith.

Alan,

You might be right. For me, the clarity of the meaning of God's will as stated by scripture is not just a matter of discerning the meaning of the words written but also of appraising the context of the books themselves. I can see that these can be seperated, but I imagine most people take both of these into consideration when choosing an interpretation that feels right for them.

...Nobody takes this as a reason to throw away bank statements or mortgage calculations.

I'm not suggesting we throw scripture away. I'm saying - to use your analogy - that the banker who holds up the numbers and tells you : these numbers mean that my bank's accounting policies are the right ones .. that this banker is giving you *his* interpretation of those same numbers.

Jared,

My point back at comment 23 was somewhere in between God's will for "everyone" and God's will for "my life." It seemed pertinent to me that an Eastern Orthodox, a Baptist, a Catholic, and a non-churcher (such as myself) have completely incongruous ideas of what is worship, but all know their bible well.

My point at comment 13 was that Jesus did not tell us what a church should look like. To "gloss over" the differences between Christians by choosing outlyers like the crusades and the inquisition struck me as a bit of a straw man. A Fundamentalist would have a hard time agreeing with the standard a Lutheran might establish, and neither one would get on well with someone who kept insisting on the second blessing.

God's Word is clear at the statement level, but not structured at any level above that. There is no comprehensive section on church governance, proper worship, or what constitutes true sacrifice, even though there are crystal clear statements on each spread throughout the text. In the banker's analogy, my account entries would be written across 20 different ledgers, without any clear linkage or index, and I would be asked to trust the banker without question!

Anyone with half a care for being understood would never have written such a blazingly ambiguous book.

I cannot see how God could have written the bible so vaguely except that He did it intentionally. Therefore I have to believe that God intended for His inspired Word to be open to multiple interpretations, and I believe He did it for good reason. Too much clarity would make lawyers of us all.

I don't know where that puts me in this discussion. I believe in inspired vagary.

Hobo:
It would seem, then, that what began as a general question of theology is now a more narrow problem of hermeneutics.
That opens up a whole lot more discussion (and debate), and I'm not sure I have the time or energy to maintain my end. If Alan is willing, perhaps he can.
I would mention, though, that my usual objections to hermeneutical relativism (reader-response criticism, etc) don't go over that well anyway. I'd say that interpretation must be determined by what the author intended, or as close to that as we can get, and that anybody interpreting a text any way they darn well please solves nothing except the problem of certain texts making us uncomfortable or sounding unfair.

Kevin:
I agree that on certain issues the Bible is ambiguous. I don't think this need send us into any sort of hermeneutical nihilism. That two people have two different interpretations doesn't mean there isn't a right one. It just means that one or both of them is wrong. A chair is either a chair or a donkey, but it's not both simply because two people come away with different views of it.

Church governance, spiritual gifts, etc -- All those things I think most folks consider non-essentials. Or, at least non-essentials when it comes down to the issue of sinful man's reconciliation with God. You can be a true follower of Jesus in an elder-led congregation just like you can be a true follower of Jesus in a pastor-led congregation. That the Bible doesn't flat-out tell us in black and white what kind of government a local church should have doesn't make the whole of God's message ambiguous.

Therefore I have to believe that God intended for His inspired Word to be open to multiple interpretations

I believe God is clear in His Word on the things He wants to be most clear about.
Jesus either died or He didn't. And the reasons the Bible gives for His death are either true or they aren't.

Why would God leave something so crucial -- the difference between eternal life and eternal death -- open to interpretation?
And even if he did, don't you see the slippery slope of problems this creates? When Paul says he has been crucified with Christ, is it a valid interpretation to assume he literally nailed his hands to a cross? If not, why not?

Jared,

You are more experienced, obviously, in debate; I hope I didn't frustrate by wandering. I didn't mean to.

Why would God leave something so crucial -- the difference between eternal life and eternal death -- open to interpretation?

Up until the protestants decided everyone could in fact come up with their own interpretation (and sola scriptura replaced the priesthood as a controlling force in those interpretations) the Church decided what interpretation to use (and teach to the uneducated masses). I think that when the various books of the NT (and OT) where written (by men, with their own culture, opinions and agendas), they were not written with the protestant literalists of the distant future in mind.

My question isn't "why would God be unclear" but rather "since the Bible is relatively unclear, what does that tell us when someone claims to know the only correct interpretation?".

The Bible is not "relatively unclear" on the most important issues. It is very clear. God is holy, man is sinful, Christ atoned for our sins, we receive salvation by simple faith that produces obedience. It's clear about many other things, too, but these are the most important ones.

the Church decided what interpretation to use

I think I would agree with you on the hermeneutical tyranny the Roman Catholic Church held over the masses until the Reformation. But the RCC did not begin at the beginning, as it were. There were many years between the early church of the apostles and the great schism that separated East from West and birthed Roman Catholicism.
Regardless of what churched folks felt forced to do, however, the spirit of Scripture was available to those who had access to it (accessibility at that time is another problem altogether), and God's truth, I believe, was present even in the days it was officially filtered through the corruption of the Roman Catholic Church.

the protestant literalists of the distant future

I'm not sure what you mean by "literalists," although I can guess.
My pet peeve is when someone says they read the Bible "literally." I assure you, though, that most folks who say this don't really mean literally. Most of those who say they interpret the Bible literally, don't believe a literal dragon will come out of the sea (as in Revelation).
What they mean is -- and what I'd support -- is interpreting the Bible in its plainest sense.

There is a science in interpretation, and nobody worth their salt believes you can read a passage in, say, Isaiah and immediately at first reading know exactly what it means. But we do believe you can get closer and closer the more you interact with the text.
Part of that science involves interpreting according to genre. The book of Psalms and other poetic passages scattered throughout the OT ought to be interpreted according to the constructs of ancient Jewish poetry. The book of Revelation ought to be interpreted according to the constructs of apocalyptic literature. The Gospels, especially the synoptics, are written in the form of ancient biographies.

It is not as if a "protestant literalist" reads Jesus saying about the bread "This is my flesh" and immediately thinks that the bread is literally Jesus' skin. The different pieces within the Gospels have different figures of speech and some of them their own genres as well -- we wouldn't interpret the parables the same way we'd interpret the genealogies, for example.

So all that to say that "protestant literalism" is a bit of a misnomer. I can't say for sure what you mean by it, but most folks who say they interpret "literally" (as unfortunate as the misuse of that word is) really just mean they take the plainest meaning of Scripture to be the best one. Sometimes it takes some work to get to the plainest meaning. There are other rules at play, like letting Scripture interpret Scripture, but we are generally confident that the meaning in the text is detectable.

Just as you hope I will understand what you're saying -- even if I eventually don't, even though you have a specific point you are trying to make -- the writers of Scripture and the Writer working through them want us to know certain things and weren't playing a game with their readers. It may take some effort for those of us, thousands of years removed to get to those things -- again, that's where the science and practice of interpretation come in -- but we believe we can get to them (or as close to them as possible without missing their points completely).

Jared,

Regarding literalism... I am not sure I can provide an exact definition. To me, I suppose, a literalist is either a fundamentalist or an evangelical who struggles to maintain as much historical truth from the Bible in defiance of scientific, historical and philosophical advancements. They believe the stories of the OT and NT - even the unbelievable ones - are literally and historically true. Of course there is metaphor used in the Bible and few people would confuse that with literal truth. But in general literalists cling to certain Biblical stories as being recorded as historical fact.

I use the term to distinguish these people from those Christians who are comfortable reading the OT stories as ancient myths of the Israelite culture, or NT stories as a small controlled subset of the collection of work describing Jesus written after he was killed. For non-literalists (again, by my definition/generalizations), the historical truth of the Bible is not as important as the message.

If you'd rather I use a different term, please let me know; I'm not using it to be offensive only descriptive.

I agree that it is a high art to interpret the scriptures. I think I actually empathize with the original Catholic Church in their desire to keep a unified Church by only allowing educated experts the chance to debate and interpret.

Cool. Completely unrelated threads going side by side, and I like both of them!

In my posts, I keep referencing worship, not salvation. In your original post, you seemed to me to be talking about behaviour. Behaviour is different from salvation, so I was not focusing on that core belief.

You have clarified for me that you were talking about morality, while I veered off into Christian practice on which I see as massively vague. I agree that the core message and morality in scripture are clear.

For the record, I also believe that all the stuff recorded in the bible happened. Does that make me a "happenedist?"

One thread down. Now, it is past time to cook dinner.

the sermon on the mount
Over at the Evangelical Outpost, Joe Carter wrote a little bit about the sermon on the mount (Matthew 5:1-7:29; all my quotes NKJV). The post isn't meant to be a theological treatise as much as a smack down to atheist/agnostic...

the sermon on the mount
Over at the Evangelical Outpost, Joe Carter wrote a little bit about the sermon on the mount (Matthew 5:1-7:29; all my quotes NKJV). The post isn't meant to be a theological treatise as much as a smack down to atheist/agnostic...

Man I'd love to get all of you in a room for a day and listen to you hash this stuff out. I'd find it quite enlightening as well as entertaining.

Thanks for the great post Jared and being willing to take on the heat... again. :-)

Good questions Hobo. I trully hope that you continue to seek after the truth, and that you ultimately recognize Him.

Peace

being willing to take on the heat... again

Ah, thanks, Rong -- and thanks for noticing! ;-)

Have you followed the trackback on this post? I'm getting it from both sides now! Apparently some guy takes me to task, saying I'm saying that we can be like Jesus if we try really, really hard. That's actually pretty much the opposite of my point, but you can't blame a guy for trying, eh?

What's a trackback?

A trackback is when another blogger references your post and wants to let you know by providing a link to their post.
Look at the very bottom of my post. You'll see a Category link and then a blue link that says "trackback." Click on that to see the blogger's link. (Actually links, because he double-trackbacked for some reason. Probably an accident.)

The sulfur and brimstone (at the track back site) were almost palpable as was the profusion of well thought out language. What joy!

jared: If you are interested, there are excellent texts available demonstrating the self-attestation of Scripture and how even the earliest church considered the letters of the apostles as holy writ.

i'd be interested in these, please.

Jez, sorry to get back to you so late. Busy day.

I'd recommend three texts:

1. Scripture and Truth edited by D.A. Carson and John Woodbridge. A collection of essays highly relevant to the quote of mine you excerpted.

2. Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon edited by Carson and Woodbridge. Again, a collection of essays by some of the best biblical scholars in academia.

3. The Canon of Scripture by F.F. Bruce. From Amazon's description: "F.F. Bruce examines the historical evidence for acceptance of the canon and addresses several central issues: the criteria of canonicity, the idea of a canon within the canon, and canonical criticism."
That one's considered a classic on the subject.

Hope those help.