Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: bnr-fos!bnr-public!davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: He loves me, He loves me not, He loves me, He... Message-ID:Date: 17 Aug 89 07:32:14 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada Lines: 136 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu [This is a continuation of the discussion between Dave Mielke and ddomingo@orion.cf.uci.edu (Douglas Domingo-Foraste). In the last posting, Douglas criticized Dave's use of Isaiah 55.10 (God's word does not return void). Dave cited it to show that if God draws someone to Christ, then they will end up being given to Christ. Dave's crucial comment was With a declaration like this, would God ever send forth His Word to draw someone and not succeed? Douglas suggested that sending forth could be said to succeed if it provoked any reaction from the hearer, even rejection. --clh] The problem is that my "rhetorical question" was not worded adequately, and not that the Scripture which I quoted did not make its point. Isaiah 55:10-11 says "For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper {in the thing} whereto I sent it.". You would be entirely correct if this Scripture only said that God's Word does not return to Him void, i.e. it always has some effect or other, but the effect that it had was left up to the reaction of its hearer. Note, however, that this Scripture also says that His Word always accomplishes the purpose for which it was sent. If God wishes to draw someone then He must send His word forth. This Scripture declares that that drawing will be accomplished because that is the purpose He sent it forth for. [Douglas also criticized Dave's argument as "literalistic." The issue here is not inerrancy, but how the Psalmist meant the words he wrote: >... Dave takes his various passages from the Psalms >about God hating sinners, not as the psalmists' emotive literary >expressions, but God's dictated theological treatise. If you >believe that God made Eve out of Adam's rib, that God has an arm >that is not too short, and that Jesus wanted to sit on the city >of Jerusalem, then Dave's approach makes consistent sense. But >if you believe that the Bible is everything God wanted to tell man >and only what God wanted to tell man, yet imbued with the literary >style of its various authors, then Dave's approach obscures God's >intentions rather than clarifies them. ] For the record, here is a summary of my beliefs with respect to your comments. The Bible is both no more and no less than God wanted to tell mankind. Although each verse is full of the literary style of its human author, it is also full of the precise meanings that God, its real author, intended it to have. If this were not true then Jesus would have been in error when He reminded Satan (and us) in Matthew 4:4 "But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.". Note, too, that Jesus quoted Scripture in order to deal with Satan, thereby demonstrating what His basis for living was. In so doing He was letting us know what He meant by the phrase "every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God". God's ability to say exactly what He means to say through whatever literary style He wants to is yet another marvelous example of His infinite abilities. Please also remember that it is He who gives us whatever gifts we have. James 1:17 reminds us "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.". If I were a computer programmer, for example, then I would be less than honest if I were ever to claim that I achieved that skill on my own. It would be a God-given skill which I would be obligated to use to its fullest in order to glorify HIs name before my fellow workers, my management, etc. It is not beyond belief that He gave the various authors of the Bible the literary skills and style that He wanted them to have so that they would write their particular Scriptures in the way that He wanted them to. Before I go on I would like to give an illustration of how we can all accomplish one of the goals I mentioned in the preceding paragraph, i.e. doing our best at our jobs in order to glorify His name. We must do our best, but we must never accept any credit for having done so. If anyone ever asks us why we do what we do so well then we must always declare not only firmly but also unhesitantly that we are merely using those skills which God has given us and that He really deserves all the credit. We should be prepared to do this at job interviews, employee reviews, meetings, public conferences, and anywhere else that we happen to find ourselves in. The reason that God gives us these skills is not so that we can build up an earthly fortune of riches and reputation, but rather to obligate those with whom we associate to pay attention to us when we tell them about God. Note that the standard for how well we are to do our jobs is that we must act as though God Himself were our immediate manager. Ephesians 6:5-7 says "Servants, be obedient to them that are {your} masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men:". For the record, I would also like to declare that I do believe that God created Eve from one of Adam's ribs. If she were a unique creation, i.e. not created from part of Adam, then we would not be able to read in Genesis 2:23 "And Adam said, This {is} now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.". I would suggest that your sarcasm does more to obscure the meaning of the Scriptures than my decision to interpret some of them literally. Remember that even our conversations in this public newsgroup are a witness for Christ to all those whom God chooses to incline to read our various postings. If we malign what He has told us through His Scriptures, then we can be reasonably sure that He will not choose to use our efforts in this area to bear fruit for Himself. You are putting yourself on a fairly high pedistle by giving yourself the right to decide whose remarks obscure what God really meant. I hope that you really do not feel that you have such a perfect understanding of the Scriptures that you can determine if someone else's remark has obscured a truth that you perhaps cannot see yet. Please permit me to give you my guildelines for knowing when to interpret something literally and when to interpret it symbolically. The Bible is the declaration to mankind of God's salvation plan for mankind. Any Scripture which relates directly to this plan can be interpreted literally without too much worry that some important meaning is being overlooked. Any Scripture which has no aparent bearing on His salvation plan, e.g. Moses striking the rock two times and it then bringing forth water, must be interpreted symbolically in order to really know what God meant by it. Statements pertaining to our current state of affairs, i.e. our hopelessly sinful nature, have a direct bearing on His salvation plan so I feel that they must be taken at face value. We really risk obscuring God's message and, in so doing, grossly misleading mankind if we decide that God's declaration of His hatred for sinners cannot be what He has really said simply because we can seemingly logically explain it away by saying that that was just the way the phrase came out because the psalmist wrote in that sort of a style. If this were true then 2 Timothy 3:16 would be in error when it declares "All scripture {is} given by inspiration of God, and {is} profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:". Dave Mielke, 613-726-0014 856 Grenon Avenue Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K2B 6G3