Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just? (Gen 18:25b)

[Hans Deventer]

Reading "The Bible Tells Me So" this verse made me think. Abraham confronts God with this remark. A few things crossed my mind:

1. It is not out of order to disagree with the word of God (another example would be Ex 32). We may, and may actually be justified in doing so.
   
   
2. We may do so, based on OUR concept of what just is. In the Scriptures, the words "just" or "love" say something about God from our point of view that is true, and He accepts that. So if He doesn't live up to OUR concept of love or justice, we may indeed confront Him and need not accept His initial word. We may in fact change His mind.
   
   
3. Like Job, we can, as it were, appeal to God against God. And be justified. We might call that using a canon within the canon.
   
   
4. God obviously does have the last word. But He still takes us seriously. An Islamic kind of submission is alien to the Scriptures.

[Randy Wise]

Exodus 32
When Moses approached the camp and saw the calf and the dancing, his anger burned and he threw the tablets out of his hands, breaking them to pieces at the foot of the mountain. 20 And he took the calf the people had made and burned it in the fire; then he ground it to powder, scattered it on the water and made the Israelites drink it.

Dad gummit Moses! God inscribed that tablet.


I do believe intercessory prayer is pleasing to God. Also just prayer in general for aid in perilous times and non perilous times. Praying for others is pleasing to God. If there's room for mercy I do believe a loving God will provide the mercy. A new covenant was mercy as God found fault with the people. The law had punishments per transgression. Thanks Father for providing Jesus for us!

Randy

[Carl Hueston]

"We may do so, based on OUR concept of what just is. In the Scriptures, the words "just" or "love" say something about God from our point of view that is true, and He accepts that. So if He doesn't live up to OUR concept of love or justice, we may indeed confront Him and need not accept His initial word. We may in fact change His mind."

While it is fine to ask God and disagree with God, our own concept must go in the trash, replaced by Jesus' concept. We must renew our minds until we are conformed to the image of Christ. Jesus said if any man wants to follow Him, that man must first deny himself. Deny our veiwpoints if they are contrary to His.

[Hans Deventer]

"We may do so, based on OUR concept of what just is. In the Scriptures, the words "just" or "love" say something about God from our point of view that is true, and He accepts that. So if He doesn't live up to OUR concept of love or justice, we may indeed confront Him and need not accept His initial word. We may in fact change His mind."

While it is fine to ask God and disagree with God, our own concept must go in the trash, replaced by Jesus' concept. We must renew our minds until we are conformed to the image of Christ. Jesus said if any man wants to follow Him, that man must first deny himself. Deny our viewpoints if they are contrary to His.

Well, I disagree, Carl. Your remark does not align with what these stories in the Holy Writ tell us. We're not Muslims whose sole purpose is to submit to the will of Allah. In that case, God would have done better to have created puppets or robots. But of course, in that case we would not even be able or allowed to say that.

The stories of Abraham and Moses do not tell us that our own concepts must go down in the trash. Surely our minds must be renewed (Rom 12) but that does not mean that everything we think is wrong. The Bible tells us that we may actually oppose God when we appeal on His love and mercy, and be justified in doing so. That means that something can be right in our thinking, and surely THAT part does not need renewal. This presumes a completely different view of God and of man.

[Carl Hueston]

I wish to listen to the words of Jesus, who said if you love me, you will listen to my words. On the mount of transfiguration, God Himself said to listen to His Son. In the bible it says God spoke to His people through the Law and Prophets, until John the Baptist came. Now the Kingdom is preached. No, not all of our thinking or ideas are wrong, but if they differ or oppose Jesus, they have to go. "To be conformed to the very image of Christ."

[Hans Deventer]

I wish to listen to the words of Jesus, who said if you love me, you will listen to my words. On the mount of transfiguration, God Himself said to listen to His Son. In the bible it says God spoke to His people through the Law and Prophets, until John the Baptist came.

Moses and Abraham spoke to God Himself.

No, not all of our thinking or ideas are wrong, but if they differ or oppose Jesus, they have to go.

Our Lord, both in OT and NT, ruled differently:

The Faith of a Canaanite Woman

Matt 15:21 Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22 A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly.” 23 Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.” 24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” 25 The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said. 26 He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.” 27 “Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.” 28 Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment.

I'm sorry Carl, can't agree because I don't think Scriptures do.

BTW, it's interesting that in all these cases, people plead for God's love and mercy. More food for thought.

Now this view might be post traditional, but we're on the right forum for that, aren't we?

[Randy Wise]

BTW, it's interesting that in all these cases, people plead for God's love and mercy. More food for thought.

Now this view might be post traditional, but we're on the right forum for that, aren't we?

But Traditional view supports sanctified by faith in Jesus. Those people who "pleaded" show a strong faith in God and Jesus. So isn't that traditional or scriptural?

Those that listen and learn from the Father go to the Son. That supports a firm faith as well. Gods Holy Spirit conveys Jesus is Lord and Christ. The Father glorifies the Son. All judgment is now in Jesus's hands.

Randy

[Hans Deventer]

But Traditional view supports sanctified by faith in Jesus. Those people who "pleaded" show a strong faith in God and Jesus. So isn't that traditional or scriptural?

Definitely. But I never read much about being allowed to disagree with God and be justified in doing so. It may be me.

[Carl Hueston]

This is why I do not take counsel from alot of the Old Testament. Yes it is true that all scripture is for our benefit, yet God made it clear to me that if it is not about the coming promise, or Jesus, the Old covenant is just that, old. It can misguide us if care is not taken. We can sometimes pull out what we want it to say. These are just a few that convinced me, and is not meant as a rebuke, it's just what opened my eyes to truth.

Luke 24:27
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he (Jesus) expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning Himself.

Acts 28:23
And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.

Matthew 11:13
For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.

Luke 16:16
The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.

Matthew 17:3-5
And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him. Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias. While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.

Mark 9:5-8
And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus. And Peter answered and said to Jesus, Master, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias. For he wist not what to say; for they were sore afraid. And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him. And suddenly, when they had looked round about, they saw no man any more, save Jesus only with themselves.

Luke 9:33-35
And it came to pass, as they departed from him, Peter said unto Jesus, Master, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias: not knowing what he said. While he thus spake, there came a cloud, and overshadowed them: and they feared as they entered into the cloud. And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.

Luke 24:44
And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

[Hans Deventer]

This is why I do not take counsel from a lot of the Old Testament.

I consider myself a Jesus freak, but I don't follow Marcion nor has the Church at large followed him. They condemned Marcion for heresy, and I'd say they were right. I frankly find your post shocking, Carl. I think you're heading in a dangerous direction. But, it's definitely post traditional

But beyond the above, I've already shown that Jesus is like his Dad. In what I wrote, there is no difference between OT and NT, it is the same God. So I don't see the relevance of your preference of the NT for this discussion.

[Randy Wise]

Definitely. But I never read much about being allowed to disagree with God and be justified in doing so. It may be me.

I think both Father and Son are pleased if you speak your heart to them. Its of note however that God has always given many chances, warnings, and time to repent to mankind. It pleases God when we move in that direction. It the case of the people Moses interceded for they didn't change. In the case of Abraham Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed. Only the people of Nineveh bowed down and took Gods warning seriously and God withheld His judgment. But as a whole I think God is pleased with intercession for others. That doesn't mean the others change their ways. Its a good hope that they do though.

Randy

[Carl Hueston]

"I consider myself a Jesus freak, but I don't follow Marcion nor has the Church at large followed him. They condemned Marcion for heresy, and I'd say they were right. I frankly find your post shocking, Carl. I think you're heading in a dangerous direction. But, it's definitely post traditional

But beyond the above, I've already shown that Jesus is like his Dad. In what I wrote, there is no difference between OT and NT, it is the same God. So I don't see the relevance of your preference of the NT for this discussion."

The New Testament is always relevant to any disscussion of God. It is what He is saying through His son for today. The Old Testament is not always relevant. It must contain teachings of the coming promise of the Messiah. Faith and hope.

It is the same God. God deals with man one way in the OT, and a new way in the NT.

In Genisis 18, God destroyed the wicked. In Exodus, He spared His people, but gave them the Law, which none could follow. He still destroyed wicked people who rejected or opposed Him. Since Jesus, God no longer destroys people, but gives mercy and grace.

You are attempting to apply concepts from a time when the world was under the curse of sin and death, to the current time of grace and mercy through Jesus.

The question is why would you want to do that?
Is it a spring board to deny the scripture you do not agree with?
Are the words of Jesus the final authority? Or do you think that you can steer around them with OT verses and still be okay with Jesus when you answer Him in heaven?

It is not out of order to disagree with the word of God. We may, and may actually be justified in doing so.

Show me where Jesus said this? He put His word above His name.

We may do so, based on OUR concept of what just is.

Jesus said we are only justified by belief on Him. Is their another way? Is our concept above the words of Jesus?

In the Scriptures, the words "just" or "love" say something about God from our point of view that is true, and He accepts that.

Can you prove that with scripture ? Where does it say in the new covenent, that He accepts our point of view even if it opposes His words?

So if He doesn't live up to OUR concept of love or justice, we may indeed confront Him and need not accept His initial word. We may in fact change His mind.

I can now confront Jesus who bought me with His blood, and tell Him He is not living up to what I thought He should be?
Then tell the the lamb who was slain for my sins that I do not accept His initial word? Jesus you have it wrong, now sit down and let me tell you how it is, then you can change your mind lol.

[Rich Schmidt]

Carl, he gave a New Testament example already, from Jesus' encounter with the Canaanite woman in Matthew 15. Perhaps you missed it? He's not pitting the OT against the NT.

[Carl Hueston]

It looks as a way to write your own scripture.

[Hans Deventer]

I've been trying to respond. I don't get the impression that you are understanding what I am saying, nor reacting to what I have written. That makes for a lousy conversation, so I'll step out of it.

[Rich Schmidt]

It looks as a way to write your own scripture.

Perhaps you could share with us how you understand the two stories Hans has shared, in which people protest God's/Jesus' decision, and he changes his mind? Do you see a better way to understand what's going on in those stories than what Hans has described?

[Cam Pence]

Its seems to me,Carl, that Hans is wrestling with and studying the Scriptures as evidenced by the two pieces he has given you thus far (old and new). I don't see how that is trying to "deny Scripture" unless the litmus test for such aa thing is whether it lines up with your interpretation or not.

[Doug Ward]

Reading "The Bible Tells Me So" this verse made me think. Abraham confronts God with this remark. A few things crossed my mind:

1. It is not out of order to disagree with the word of God (another example would be Ex 32). We may, and may actually be justified in doing so.
2. We may do so, based on OUR concept of what just is. In the Scriptures, the words "just" or "love" say something about God from our point of view that is true, and He accepts that. So if He doesn't live up to OUR concept of love or justice, we may indeed confront Him and need not accept His initial word. We may in fact change His mind.
3. Like Job, we can, as it were, appeal to God against God. And be justified. We might call that using a canon within the canon.
4. God obviously does have the last word. But He still takes us seriously. An Islamic kind of submission is alien to the Scriptures.

In case anyone is interested, I wrote a paper on this passage a few years ago. It fits with the post-traditional forum.

[Hans Deventer]

In case anyone is interested, I wrote a paper on this passage a few years ago. It fits with the post-traditional forum.

I am! I'll read it right away.

Later.......

Good stuff, Doug, thanks for sharing. I like it when people take the Scriptures seriously.

[Todd Erickson]

"It is the same God. God deals with man one way in the OT, and a new way in the NT.

In Genisis 18, God destroyed the wicked. In Exodus, He spared His people, but gave them the Law, which none could follow. He still destroyed wicked people who rejected or opposed Him. Since Jesus, God no longer destroys people, but gives mercy and grace.

You are attempting to apply concepts from a time when the world was under the curse of sin and death, to the current time of grace and mercy through Jesus."

I have to seriously question this, as it ignores the breadth of the theme of the OT in favor of picking at specific examples and making them the norm for the book.

Assuming that we can take the words of God's prophets to heart, God is always crying out for His people to respond to Him, to Love Him. The law existed for mankind's good, not for God...properly obeying the law wasn't there to get people into heaven, but to enable them to be a blessing to each other and to other peoples.

We spend so much time talking about the law, and individual salvation, we miss this point. God is still the same God, about the same purpose.

[Paul DeBaufer]

The Old Testament is not always relevant.

This isn't what what the author of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 seems to be saying.

16All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.

Here this author is specifically speaking of what we call the Old Testament.

[Hans Deventer]

This isn't what what the author of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 seems to be saying.

16All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.

Here this author is specifically speaking of what we call the Old Testament.

Interestingly, what is says is "πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος" - "All Scripture God-breathed". What I remember from my Greek lessons is that the verb "is", is not always mentioned and often presumed. So it might mean "All scripture is inspired by God" but equally well "All Scripture, inspired by God, is useful" etc. The till recently most widely used Dutch translation, translated it this way.

[Rich Schmidt]

Interestingly, what is says is "πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος" - "All Scripture God-breathed". What I remember from my Greek lessons is that the verb "is", is not always mentioned and often presumed. So it might mean "All scripture is inspired by God" but equally well "All Scripture, inspired by God, is useful" etc. The till recently most widely used Dutch translation, translated it this way.

Do you see a difference in meaning between these two? Because, in English, they appear to mean the same thing.

[Hans Deventer]

Do you see a difference in meaning between these two? Because, in English, they appear to mean the same thing.

Sure. The latter translation opens the door to there being Scripture that is not inspired by God.

[Rich Schmidt]

Sure. The latter translation opens the door to there being Scripture that is not inspired by God.

I wondered if that was where you were headed. Grammatically, in English, what you've written doesn't allow for that interpretation.

"All Scripture, inspired by God, is useful..."

Putting "inspired by God" in apposition to "All Scripture" like that means the same as saying "All Scripture is inspired by God."

[Hans Deventer]

I wondered if that was where you were headed. Grammatically, in English, what you've written doesn't allow for that interpretation.

"All Scripture, inspired by God, is useful..."

Putting "inspired by God" in apposition to "All Scripture" like that means the same as saying "All Scripture is inspired by God."

Well, to get closer to the Dutch, it reads "Every God-inspired Scripture", but I wasn't sure if that was proper English.

[Paul DeBaufer]

I wondered if that was where you were headed. Grammatically, in English, what you've written doesn't allow for that interpretation.

"All Scripture, inspired by God, is useful..."

Putting "inspired by God" in apposition to "All Scripture" like that means the same as saying "All Scripture is inspired by God."

So, would "All scripture inspired by God is useful...." mean what Hans is suggesting? I think so. I did understand what he meant with the comma, but as I consider it I think you are right.

[Rich Schmidt]

Well, to get closer to the Dutch, it reads "Every God-inspired Scripture", but I wasn't sure if that was proper English.

So, would "All scripture inspired by God is useful...." mean what Hans is suggesting? I think so. I did understand what he meant with the comma, but as I consider it I think you are right.

Yes, either of those would mean what Hans is saying, because they leave room for (and actually imply) that some Scripture is not God-inspired.

If you want to, you can read more about apposition (restrictive vs. non-restrictive) on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apposition.

[Hans Deventer]

Rich, with apologies for completely drifting away from the subject, please bear with me a little. What is the difference in English between "all Scripture, inspired by God" and "all Scripture that is inspired by God" ? In my ignorance, I see no difference.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Rich, with apologies for completely drifting away from the subject, please bear with me a little. What is the difference in English between "all Scripture, inspired by God" and "all Scripture that is inspired by God" ? In my ignorance, I see no difference.

It seems, according to the Wiki article, that the use of the comma in "all scripture, inspired by God..." that "inspired by God is not restricting "all scripture" but is adding additional information about all scripture. Whereas without the comma "all scripture inspired by God..." is restricted to only that scripture that is inspired by God. I found the Wiki article very interesting

[Rich Schmidt]

Rich, with apologies for completely drifting away from the subject, please bear with me a little. What is the difference in English between "all Scripture, inspired by God" and "all Scripture that is inspired by God" ? In my ignorance, I see no difference.

It seems, according to the Wiki article, that the use of the comma in "all scripture, inspired by God..." that "inspired by God is not restricting "all scripture" but is adding additional information about all scripture. Whereas without the comma "all scripture inspired by God..." is restricted to only that scripture that is inspired by God. I found the Wiki article very interesting

What Paul said.

Let's see if a parallel example would help.

"All of creation, created by God, is loved by God." This means that all of creation is created by God and is loved by God.

"All of creation created by God is loved by God." This means that all of creation that was created by God is loved by God. It implies that there are parts of creation NOT created by God and that those parts not created by God are not loved by him. "All of creation NOT created by God is NOT loved by God."

Maybe a different example would work better... Hmm....

"All cars, running on gasoline, are more expensive to drive these days."

"All cars running on gasoline are more expensive to drive these days."

The first one is making a double assertion about "all cars" - that they run on gasoline, and that they are more expensive to drive (with the implication that this is due to their running on gasoline).

The second one is only making an assertion about "all cars running on gasoline."

Is any of this helping?

[Hans Deventer]

"All cars, running on gasoline, are more expensive to drive these days."

"All cars running on gasoline are more expensive to drive these days."

The first one is making a double assertion about "all cars" - that they run on gasoline, and that they are more expensive to drive (with the implication that this is due to their running on gasoline).

The second one is only making an assertion about "all cars running on gasoline."

Is any of this helping?

It's probably my lack of knowledge of the English language and perhaps the Dutch as well. To me, the two sentences make no difference, because "running on gasoline" simply has to limit "all cars" for otherwise the sentence makes no sense.

[Rich Schmidt]

It's probably my lack of knowledge of the English language and perhaps the Dutch as well. To me, the two sentences make no difference, because "running on gasoline" simply has to limit "all cars" for otherwise the sentence makes no sense.

Well, the sentence would be incorrect, since not all cars run on gasoline, but when written that way, it would mean what I described.

"All Scripture, inspired by God, is useful..." is the same as saying "All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful..."

"All Scripture inspired by God is useful..." is the same as saying "All of the Scripture that is inspired by God is useful..."

You can either take my word for it... or read the Wikipedia article I linked to earlier.

[Steven Martinez]

Hans, perhaps this will help:

[Hans Deventer]

You can either take my word for it... or read the Wikipedia article I linked to earlier.

Did, but didn't understand it. But that's ok, nobody expects me to understand everything. I'll stick to the Greek and the Dutch