Liberty University & Jerry Falwell...

Gee, Bill, didn't you see the "wink" icon as the end of my post? I was not attacking your character. I think you have fine character and have proven so in your numerous posts.

===

I'm glad. You're right, I didn't interpret the wink to mean that everything you said was a joke. I'll have to use that more often as then I can say anything and not be responsible.

===

The sword reference, Bill, can be taken literally, as you do or taken figuratively meaning division between the Godly and un-godly.

===

Certainly some Scriptures must be taken figuratively. The issue is, why should most of Jer 29 be taken that way since it is not inconsistent with God's nature throughout the Bible and as it is contexted in historical situations?

One way to deal with seemingly condradictory concepts , as God's wrath and God's love, is to say all texts alluding to the former are figurative and all referencing the latter are literal. IMO that is a faulty hermeneutic.

===

You believe, I think, in the infallibility of Scripture; I believe it was inspired but is not infallible. I also believe in progressive revelation. [/B][/QUOTE]

===

Infallibility is not the immediate issue. Hermeneutics is the issue. The issue is not whether Jeremiah 29 is true, the issue is what is Jeremiah intending that we understand his meaning to be. I see nothing in chap 29 to suggest that Jer wants the references to God's actions to be taken figuratively!

In my opinion anyone who thinks it is figurative is prideful

 

It's not ignored, Bill, it's put into a contextual framework looking at symbolism, idiomatic language, the fallability of the scribes, consistency with the teachings of Jesus, and on, and on and on.

Why do you think so many scholars, who studied at some of the world's finest schools, cannot agree on many texts?

The Niebuhr's, Fosdick's, Pike's, Kung's, Spong's, Barth's, Kierkegaard's, Ames's, Coccieus's, Ritschl's, Harnack's, Bushnell's, Brunner's, Adams's of the world, past and present, are (were) highly educated men from the finest theological institutions. Yet, they vehemently disagreed theologically with one another on many issues.

Bill, if you had a son who was stubborn and rebellious, would you follow Deut. 21:18-21?

 

]

It's not ignored, Bill, it's put into a contextual framework looking at symbolism, idiomatic language, the fallability of the scribes, consistency with the teachings of Jesus, and on, and on and on.

===

Of course it is ignored. What does does Jeremiah 29 then mean by that method?

How is a literal interpretation of Jer 29 against Jesus' teachings?

===

Why do you think so many scholars, who studied at some of the world's finest schools, cannot agree on many texts?

===


Lots of reasons. Let's stck to this one issue. Why must Jer 29 be figurative?

===

The Niebuhr's, Fosdick's, Pike's, Kung's, Spong's, Barth's, Kierkegaard's, Ames's, Coccieus's, Ritschl's, Harnack's, Bushnell's, Brunner's, Adams's of the world, past and present, are (were) highly educated men from the finest theological institutions. Yet, they vehemently disagreed theologically with one another on many issues.

===

Please, instead of referencing all these, which impresses no one, simply say why Jer 29 must be figurative.

Because these disagree is no evidence for your position. We are not discussing whether or not we disagree. That is a given. We are discussing why we disagree.

===
Bill, if you had a son who was stubborn and rebellious, would you follow Deut. 21:18-21? [/B][/QUOTE]

===

Deut 21 is not addressed to me. Neither is Jer 29:11 addressed to you. So, why do you cite it in your sig as though it were? Perhaps it too is figurative and God really has no loving plan for anyone! Perhaps all Scripture is figurative?

 

Lutherans don't consider themselves Protestant? I thought that they were sort of the archtypical Protestants, Unk.

That was Jimmy's point, I think.

There's a wide variety of opinion out there among Christians. It's possible to be a Christian, even a good one, and still disagree. That's true even if the disagreements aren't expressed in as scholarly a fashion as some on Degreeinfo might like.

That's one of the ways that religion differs from secular subjects like mathematics, I think. While laymen receive the findings of topology from above, as if revealed from Sinai, the laity are direct and active participants in, and even creators of, religious belief.

I'm not sure if academic authority can ever have the definitive place in religious faith that it has in faculty clubs.

 

Perhaps, my friend, perhaps!

 

Careful now, Bill.

Have you reread all your theological posts chock full of deep, extensive exegeses, word studies, references to numerous church fathers, theologians, and ancient manuscripts?

 

Two quick things:
No, Bill Dayson, hardline crank Lutherans don't.
Sure, Jimmy, it's just a bulletin board.


(I must fly. Yours truly is about to be smuggled into the Notre Dame library--aka Lubyanka or the Forbidden City--under cover of darkness, which will be difficult as he is somewhat ungainly and it is broad daylight. Ons vir jou, Suid-Afrika!)

 

Anglicans do not consider themselves to be Protestant. I think they consider themselves as part of the "Universal" church with the Catholics and Orthodox. The Anglican split was driven first by politics then theology.

 

Careful now, Bill.

Have you reread all your theological posts chock full of deep, extensive exegeses, word studies, references to numerous church fathers, theologians, and ancient manuscripts? [/B]

===

Yes, I do regularly use the scholarship of others. That's true. If we, eg, were discussing what a certain word meant, I would cite from lexicons about THAT word. If the issue were a grammaticism, I would reference a grammar about THAT grammaticism. That's true! I would try to prove my exact point by citing authorities about that exact point. But I wouldn't cite a bunch of authorities just to show that authorities disagree! That's just knocking down a strawman! Who is saying they don't??



Jimmy, the point that I'm asking you to provide reasons for is why Jer 29 must be interpreted figuratively. Was citing all those theologians for that very point? The point is NOT that theologians differ. I do not question that!

Say two here are arguing about the causes of the Civil War. So one says to the other , "My position is correct because lots of historians disagree about lots of things!" Does that seem to you to be a good argument? Do you think my Committee will be convinced if I say, "My thesis is correct because scholars disagree"??

Our issue Jimmy, was not whether theologians disagree. Of course they do! Our issue was whether there are good reasons to take Jer 29 only figuratively. That is our point. You have not provided any good reasons.

 

It's interesting that many denominations do not consider themselves Protestants. They say they do not "protest anything." Generally speaking a Protestant meant someone who didn't belong to either the Roman or Greek Church.

Quakers consider themselves a "third way" of Christians, emphasizing fundamentals differently from Roman Catholics and Protestants. Protestant is a word we just don't hear that often anymore.

 

I don't know about any "methods". But Jer. 29 pretty clearly is a response to the disastrous events of Judah's fall to the Babylonians and the exile of much of its aristocratic class to Mesopotamia.

Jer 29:1 Now these [are] the words of the letter that Jeremiah the prophet sent from Jerusalem unto the residue of the elders which were carried away captives, and to the priests, and to the prophets, and to all the people whom Nebuchadnezzar had carried away captive from Jerusalem to Babylon;

The author seems concerned in this passage to make religious sense of the disaster, to fit it into the framework of God's works.

God willed the defeat, it isn't a disproof of Gods power:

Jer 29:4 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, unto all that are carried away captives, whom I have caused to be carried away from Jerusalem unto Babylon;

God is portrayed as promising to redeem the captives:

Jer 29:10 For thus saith the LORD, That after seventy years be accomplished at Babylon I will visit you, and perform my good word toward you, in causing you to return to this place.

Jer 29:11 For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the LORD, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end.

Jer 29:12 Then shall ye call upon me, and ye shall go and pray unto me, and I will hearken unto you.

Jer 29:13 And ye shall seek me, and find [me], when ye shall search for me with all your heart.

Jer 29:14 And I will be found of you, saith the LORD: and I will turn away your captivity, and I will gather you from all the nations, and from all the places whither I have driven you, saith the LORD; and I will bring you again into the place whence I caused you to be carried away captive.

I can easily understand Jimmy responding to that. It's a moving statement of hope in what must have seemed a hopeless situation. All of us experience darkness in our lives and it helps to feel that God will gather us in, from all the places where we have been driven.

But the author of Jeremiah wants not only to give hope to the defeated, he wants to explain the disaster itself. How could God have allowed it to happen? In prophetic style he considers it just punishment for Judah's leaders' iniquities. And they will pay.

Jer 29:21 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, of Ahab the son of Kolaiah, and of Zedekiah the son of Maaseiah, which prophesy a lie unto you in my name; Behold, I will deliver them into the hand of Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon; and he shall slay them before your eyes;

I don't know enough about Jesus' teachings to definitively say that it is. But the side-by-side pairing of compassion and violence in Jer. 29, typical of the prophetic writings, doesn't seem exactly right to me, somehow. But what do I know?

Again, I don't know that it must be figurative. But it does strike me as an ancient writer's attempt to spin a military defeat into something of larger religious significance. Since it attributes the defeat to God's will, it pretty much has to invoke the idea of divine wrath, simply because of how the situation has been set up.

I see the passage as illustrating some broader themes: the search for larger meaning in seemingly chaotic events, the idea that defeat can have a positive purifying purpose, and the idea of ultimate hope and redemption for those who stay resolute and true.

One might argue that the concept of a violent and vengeful warrior God, who freely unleashes wrath on all and sundry, isn't as worthy of our worship as some other models of the deity might be.

We all know that the Old Testament contains some problem passages. God repeatedly orders his people to sack Canaanite cities and kill all their inhabitants, men, women, children and even their animals. If God can order genocide with the aplumb of a Hitler, then we have some theological difficulties.

My inclination is to read the Hebrew Bible as a record of a people's faith in their God. Their understanding of their God develops over time as the people grow in sophistication, gradually growing from a brutal tribal god into something more worthy of our worship.

I'm not a Christian, so I do believe something very similar to that.

But the reason for citing Jer. 29:11 should be obvious. It's an expression of hope to those in the midst of darkness. That speaks to all of us, not just to Judean exiles in Babylon. It's universal.

 

I actually read the Prophets last week - BORING. I enjoy the history part of the Old Testament as it more or less follows a progression. Is anyone convinced that the prophets were prophets or just historians.

This week it's Psalms and Proverbs etc. Does this stuff rhyme in Hebrew? The Byrds did amazing things with Ecclesiastes back in the 60s.

Then it's on to the New Testament, way more readable, more sophisticated theology than grilling a cow and more importantly, way shorter.

 

The author seems concerned in this passage to make religious sense of the disaster, to fit it into the framework of God's works.

===

And that is why it must be taken literally. Bill, by 'literal', in reference to God at work in this chapter, I am not meaning something historically provable . My meaning is that the intent of the author is to say that God did that. Jeremiah wishes his readers to see God at work in their history.

===



I can easily understand Jimmy responding to that. It's a moving statement of hope in what must have seemed a hopeless situation. All of us experience darkness in our lives and it helps to feel that God will gather us in, from all the places where we have been driven.

===

Well said. But Jimmy is not one to whom Jeremiah addresses these words (v1). Jimmy was not carried away to Mesopotamia . Of course one may say that a God who loved these also loves me. Nothing wrong with that. There are , of course, many comforting promises in the Bible which are more applicable to Jimmy. But if the warnings of divine wrath are just to be taken as non literal, then why should the promises of divine grace be taken as literal?

===



I don't know enough about Jesus' teachings to definitively say that it is. But the side-by-side pairing of compassion and violence in Jer. 29, typical of the prophetic writings, doesn't seem exactly right to me, somehow. But what do I know?

===

But Jesus regularly used what was thought to be divine OT judgments as Sodom (Mt 11:24) and the flood (24:38) to warn of God's wrath upon His auditors. So it would not seem that Jesus just taught a loving God, but also a God who punishes as well.

Further, Jesus Himself issues harsh warnings about the punishment He will give as ,"depart from Me ye cursed into the everlasting fire" (Mt 26:41) ?

 

This is not a doctoral dissertation committee, Bill. This is a bulletin board and forum for the exchange of ideas, opinions, and beliefs (the Off-Topic section).

Expressing my opinions and beliefs and pointing to scholars who shared these beliefs should suffice for such a venue as this. Pages and pages of research is not appropriate on this locus.

If I say, for instance, that I think God is best understood philosophically rather than theologically, or if I say I deny the possibility of propositional truths and state Paul Tillich and Karl Barth held these views, respectively, I don't need to prove this on this forum.

These scholars wrote extensively on these respective topics and simply citing they held these beliefs is sufficient.

The irony of all this, Bill, is that you, much better than I, know who all the scholars were (are) who held (hold) my beliefs regarding certain theological and Biblical issues and you know their research inside out.

 

But these verses are consistent with the entire message of hope and redemption and most certainly do apply to every Christian!

I fell in love with this verse after reading the Calvinist Dr. Lloyd John Ogilvie's book "A Future and a Hope."

In this book Ogilvie talks about nearly dying in the hills of Scotland and being ready to give up when he recalled these words from Jeremiah: "For I know the plans I have for you, says the Lord. They are plans for good and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope."

In his book Ogilvie details God's hopes and plans for us in this life and in the next. Perhaps you should contact Ogilvie and tell him this passage of Scripture does not apply to him.

 

This is not a doctoral dissertation committee, Bill. This is a bulletin board and forum for the exchange of ideas, opinions, and beliefs (the Off-Topic section).

===

No, it is a forum of intelligent, educated people who expect sound reasoning---right?

How can ideas be well- exchanged if ideas are not well-argued?

Do you think it's OK to give opinions without reasons? Then you never ask others for reasons--is that right? So, if someone says something politically that you disagree with, you never ask his reasons? Right? Gee I bet I could find where you in fact do, Jimmy!

We give reasons here for what we say about movies or schools or obesity or politics, so why not give reasons for what we say about our understanding of a Scripture if we choose to give our opinion on that??

So, what are your reasons why Jer 29 must be figurative?

===
Expressing my opinions and beliefs and pointing to scholars who shared these beliefs should suffice for such a venue as this. Pages and pages of research is not appropriate on this locus.

===

I'm not asking for pages and pages, Jimmy. If you can point to Barth or Tillich saying they think 29 must be intended by Jer as figurative, then state where they say this and share why they say this. That doesn't take pages and pages to provide--does it? Just say, eg, Barth, Dogmatics I.1, p265, says "xxx" because xxx. See, that doesn't take pages and pages!!!

===

If I say, for instance, that I think God is best understood philosophically rather than theologically, or if I say I deny the possibility of propositional truths and state Paul Tillich and Karl Barth held these views, respectively, I don't need to prove this on this forum.

===

That's right. You can say here whatever you want. You can say the Bible just teaches whatever and no one can force you to give proof. That's right!

But if you are sincerely wanting to share truth, then please explain why you think it's OK to imply an author as Barth or Tillich says something about Jer intending 29 to be understood figuratively but refuse to give the location where it is said or explain why it is said.

Please share with us all where Tillich or Barth precisely says the author of Jer 29 means that his chap is to not be literally interpreted.

===

These scholars wrote extensively on these respective topics and simply citing they held these beliefs is sufficient.

===

That is not our subject. Our subject is whether Jer meant 29 to be interpreted literally or figuratively.

===

The irony of all this, Bill, is that you, much better than I, know who all the scholars were (are) who held (hold) my beliefs regarding certain theological and Biblical issues and you know their research inside out. [/B][/QUOTE]

===

Jimmy. Please try to understand. I am not here concerned with your entire belief system or how it approximates Tillich's or whomever's

I am just talking about Jer 29! I don't know why you spend pages and pages on other issues instead of just simply giving your reasons on 29.

I'll assume, since you do not give them, and instead just beat around all other theological bushes, that you really have no good reasons for your view on 29

 

Jimmy

While in my bath I began to get a guilty conscience. Certainly you have a right to believe the author of 29 wants his readers to not take it literally. While I disagree, I'm not going to argue this any more in this thread.

I just don't feel right about it. So, sorry!!

You may have the last word if you wish--I stick my chin far out and am ready for you to pop it one.

 

I still have some Quaker in me, so I won't pop you!

 

Ag shame.

@ 2 a.m. Indiana Whatever Time yours truly dropped and rolled out of a garbage chute and ecscaped, in the local lingo, from the Neuter Dome libarry aka the Hermit Kingdom.

They charge $500, or D893,732,000 in new Iraqi dinars, for an annual guest borrower card. So this was a smuggling operation, in and out.

What did I learn about this deluxe outfit?

Smells like urine.
Nothing dusted since Paul VI was pope.
All wooden surfaces defaced with obscene or sports graffiti.
Many, many books missing.
Periodical volumes with many, many pages torn out.
Only one unlocked bathroom on Sundays in 15 story building.

Say what you like about your DL school; it doesn't smell like pee.

The evident lack of pride or care for a premier research libarry is sad and disgusting, especially in light of the HUGE cascade of simoleons pouring into the place (footballfootballfootball).

Having seen where the upper class studies, it's a blerrie wonder there's hasn't been a revolution.

And, yes, I know this has nothing to do with Jerry Falwell or his schoo. Neither does anything else on this thread.

 

Carl reported that Falwell made a statement about God's activity and suggested that people not attend Liberty because of that.

If what Falwell is reported to have said God did is irreconcilable with the claimed source of Falwell's belief about God ( the Bible) , because that God is non-violent and loving, then because of Falwell's relation to Liberty, a school which is said to be founded on the Bible, Liberty might be hurt by that unbiblical comment even moreso than a library is hurt by dusty tables or having few available bathrooms on a Sunday. Biblicists might doubt the school because they doubt the possibility of Falwell's statement being Biblical.

But if Falwell's statement is quite reconcilable with, or even predictable by, God's activity or revealed nature in the Bible as One who punishes, then Biblicists may not take offence at Falwell's statement. So the issue includes what Scripture teaches about God. Therefore a discussion of that is not disconnected to Carl's first post IMO.