Does God Ever Take Life or Order Its Taking?

[Philip]

OK, get comfortable, grab a drink - this is a bit long:

OK, from the previous thread, we're discussing God's using Israel as an instrument of punishment in taking lives, and if Scripture is accurate, that He sometimes ordered the taking of even the lives of pagan infants and children. A VERY difficult subject.

First, I'll address Neo on infants and children:

Neo: “The logic Philip has used unintentionally, not realizing (and I call it an evil logic) and I questioned him on that, is that those infants would go to heaven.

But how could they?
1. If they were sinless then God had innocents killed?

Ultimately, the children were not the target or the cause of the punishment – but, and that is IF this passage is truly saying what it APPEARS to – God had an instant and glorious plan for those infants and children. If they had remained to grow up as pagans, they would have been lost for eternity. Why He did not have Israel adopt them? I don't know. It is very disturbing, and understandably so!

Neo: 2. If they were not sinless than how would they go to heaven?

Again, God requires repentance and faith of those whom are able to understand and do so – and infants and children obviously cannot. David clearly thought his dead child (from Basheba) was with the Lord. God does not punish for what one CAN'T do, but for what one CAN do and yet refuses to.

When David receives news that the child has died, he quits mourning and fasting and changes his clothing. The prophet Nathan comes to David and asks him why he quit mourning the loss of his son.

David replies, "While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, 'Who knows, the LORD may be gracious to me, that the child may live.' But now he has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me (2 Sam. 12:22-23)." The text seems to imply that the child went to Heaven since David says, "I will go to him, but he will not return to me"; and elsewhere Scripture indicates that David went to Heaven (Ps. 16:10-11; Heb. 11:32-33).

As for whether Scripture is truthful concerning things it says God ordered that seem unthinkable to us - even repulsive:

Neo, I think you are being very selective on what you think God cannot or doesn't do.

First off, He most certainly has put us in a world in which EVERYONE eventually dies – most unpleasantly, often in illness or disease. Where did the biological origins of why we are all mortally doomed come from to begin with? God! God built the consequences of our biology into the system. He allows and ultimately controls natural disasters. He sees babies die in unthinkable situations. But we know that God is not just focused on NOW – He sees eternity in which this will be just a blink of the eye. But there is purpose in this “blink,” no matter how terrible, we know God has purpose in all of it.

But we tend to think of the above more as INDIRECT causes of death and suffering – although we logically know God originated what is possible within certain parameters, and that He ultimately allows, disallows or intervenes as He so sees fit. Of course, man is the cause of much suffering, but the possibilities of what can happen, even though man is the cause, was designed by God.

OK, so let's see what God has done in Scripture: We see that God wiped out ALL of humanity except Noah and his family on the Ark. EVERYONE else – men, women, children, babies – they ALL drowned or were somehow killed by the flood. Oh, but that's probably an OT mythical tale, one might say. But then why is it referenced significantly in the NT? (See: (Matthew 24:38–39; 1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 2:5; 2 Peter 3:6; Hebrews 11:7; Luke 17:27). Were the babies (totally unaware, not yet immersed in deliberate sin) and children (not yet aware of God, their own sin, their responsibiltiy for that sin) being punished. No! It was the evil adult pagans that were well aware of their own evil that God so punished. What about Sodom: “... the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the Lord out of heaven.” Just adults there? Certainly not!

Well, IF we believe Scripture, we can see that God did things that we find unthinkable, seemingly immoral, and yet we see that these things were confirmed in the NT. If you believe that the NT is Scriptural and “God breathed,” then you have no choice but to believe this is true about the OT. The very NT Scriptures that tell us all of what we know about Jesus also show that He confirms the OT as Scripture. It is constantly referenced. And neither Jesus or ANY Apostle ever once said, “Well, you know, there are some things assumed to be Scripture that aren't – the Flood, the conquest of Canaan, Sodom and Gomorrah. God never did such terrible things.” Or, “There are many problems in what is mixed in with actual Scripture – so, be aware of these things.” And if that were the case, not only would we expect an Apostle to correct the false understandings, that such things weren't actually Scriptural - you'd also expect to see some specific warnings about key passages. Yet not the least whisper that ANY of the OT was not God given!

In Matthew 23:35, Jesus confirms ALL of the OT by framing it. Not one referenced did He ever make to ANY of it not being God's Word or false. Exactly the opposite! Here's a good primer on how Jesus viewed the OT and Scripture: https://carm.org/questions/about-jesus/ ... -testament.

My question would be, if you doubt what Scripture records in the OT, but you believe in Jesus and what God requires of men based upon the NT, then why do you cherry pick which parts of the NT you accept? How can you discern between them? How are you even sure if you need a Savior IF Scripture is riddled with errors? How could you trust ANY of it? And what does it say about God's power to build and astounding universe, HOLD IT TOGETHER, and yet He got sloppy with how His Word to man was recorded and preserved – allowed it to get blended with hideous untruths and outright lies and fiction – to the point He would have well known we wouldn't have a clue as to which is WHICH? If Scripture is a blended hodgepodge of fact and the mere lies and myths of men, of what possible good would it be to us? As how would we know the differences? We wouldn't and we couldn't.

[PaulSacramento]

My question would be, if you doubt what Scripture records in the OT, but you believe in Jesus and what God requires of men based upon the NT, then why do you cherry pick which parts of the NT you accept? How can you discern between them? How are you even sure if you need a Savior IF Scripture is riddled with errors? How could you trust ANY of it? And what does it say about God's power to build and astounding universe, HOLD IT TOGETHER, and yet He got sloppy with how His Word to man was recorded and preserved – allowed it to get blended with hideous untruths and outright lies and fiction – to the point He would have well known we wouldn't have a clue as to which is WHICH? If Scripture is a blended hodgepodge of fact and the mere lies and myths of men, of what possible good would it be to us? As how would we know the differences? We wouldn't and we couldn't.

So every part of the bible is to be taken as literal AND concrete?

[Philip]

Paul: So every part of the bible is to be taken as literal AND concrete?

Obviously, NO! And these are individual questions. The first and most important question would be, is it actually Scripture - is it actually God's communication to man or is it man-made fiction? God did not give Scripture in such a way that we can reasonably cherry pick what parts are His Word and what parts are not (from what was originally given and preserved by God). In my mind, if you discount any of the OT as not being Scripture, Then you have to begin deciding what in the NT Jesus actually said and did and which Apostle-quoted OT passages were not actual Scripture. and if you do that, then you're without any real confidence that ANY of it is God-given. You either believe what Jesus and His Apostles quoted to be Scripture or not. You just can't credibly say, "Passage A is Scripture but Passage B is not" - as how would you know?!!!

Now, the actual MEANING of Scripture passages can be reasonably discussed. But the first obvious question has to be is it Scripture!

[RickD]

Anyone read the section in Copan's book Is God a Moral Monster, to see if his conclusion makes any sense?

[Philip]

Anyone read the section in Copan's book Is God a Moral Monster, to see if his conclusion makes any sense?

In general, he said, based upon other passages where similar language was used, that this was an exageration referring to a complete defeat of an enemy - and not as to an actual command to kill infants and children. I'll try to show more detail as time allows. However, the larger discussion reveals, as in such cases like the Flood of Noah, that God HAS rendered judgements that also involved the taking of children and infant's lives. Sodom and Gomorrah, etc. So, if that is not the case here, it clearly is elsewhere. And the fact that God allows so many disturbing things to take lives is understandably troubling to us. And yet, it is a fact of life and death on earth. God COULD prevent such things, but He often chooses to allow them. So, do we STILL trust Him, in such cases?

[PaulSacramento]

Paul: So every part of the bible is to be taken as literal AND concrete?

Obviously, NO! And these are individual questions. The first and most important question would be, is it actually Scripture - is it actually God's communication to man or is it man-made fiction? God did not give Scripture in such a way that we can reasonably cherry pick what parts are His Word and what parts are not (from what was originally given and preserved by God). In my mind, if you discount any of the OT as not being Scripture, Then you have to begin deciding what in the NT Jesus actually said and did and which Apostle-quoted OT passages were not actual Scripture. and if you do that, then you're without any real confidence that ANY of it is God-given. You either believe what Jesus and His Apostles quoted to be Scripture or not. You just can't credibly say, "Passage A is Scripture but Passage B is not" - as how would you know?!!!

Now, the actual MEANING of Scripture passages can be reasonably discussed. But the first obvious question has to be is it Scripture!

So who decides which part are to be taken literal and which ones are literal and concrete and which ones are not ??

You know, I have come up against these questions a lot and the one answer that was given by one of my theology professors is still with me:

"If scripture is vital for salvation then, when it is YOUR salvation on the line ( to whatever degree that scripture is vital for salvation), in WHO's HANDS do YOU put that responsibility on?
For myself, I put MY interpretation of scripture in the guiding hand of The holy Spirit and ask that He guide my understanding. I may be wrong but it will be MY mistake and God will know in WHO I put my trust to guide me".

[PaulSacramento]

Anyone read the section in Copan's book Is God a Moral Monster, to see if his conclusion makes any sense?

Copan's opinion is based on HOW the OT was written and to WHOM and based on the writings of the same periods, it is fair to suggest that not ALL that was written was written to be understood as literal and concrete.
Just as we today use terms like " leave no stone un-turned" or " They wiped out every man, woman and child and flatten the entire village" when describing and act of total annihilation EVEN if it was NOT 100% total.

[PaulSacramento]

Remember, just because we look at the OT and try to understand it from the historical perspective, doesn't me we are doubting it's validity as scripture.
It should also be noted that we should not take ALL parts of scripture with EQUAL measure of "infallibility" and what I mean is this:
There are passages that are explicitly stated as being divinely inspired ( pretty much anything Jesus said and every time a passage starts with "and God said..." for example) and others in which it may be implied and others that, if we look at them, there is no reason to view them as being directly inspired by the HS ( a counting of people for example).

[RickD]

Anyone read the section in Copan's book Is God a Moral Monster, to see if his conclusion makes any sense?

In general, he said, based upon other passages where similar language was used, that this was an exageration referring to a complete defeat of an enemy - and not as to an actual command to kill infants and children. I'll try to show more detail as time allows. However, the larger discussion reveals, as in such cases like the Flood of Noah, that God HAS rendered judgements that also involved the taking of children and infant's lives. Sodom and Gomorrah, etc. So, if that is not the case here, it clearly is elsewhere. And the fact that God allows so many disturbing things to take lives is understandably troubling to us. And yet, it is a fact of life and death on earth. God COULD prevent such things, but He often chooses to allow them. So, do we STILL trust Him, in such cases?

But Philip,

In the cases of the flood, and Sodom and Gomorrah, God is the one doing the killing directly. And in the instances we've been discussing, if we take the bible as saying God used Israel to do His killing, it's different. I don't think Neo has a problem with God doing the killing directly. His issue is if and when God commands people to kill in His name.

So, if Copan is correct, then Neo's issue is a moot point. And, we're arguing for no reason.

[RickD]

Remember, just because we look at the OT and try to understand it from the historical perspective, doesn't me we are doubting it's validity as scripture.
It should also be noted that we should not take ALL parts of scripture with EQUAL measure of "infallibility" and what I mean is this:
There are passages that are explicitly stated as being divinely inspired ( pretty much anything Jesus said and every time a passage starts with "and God said..." for example) and others in which it may be implied and others that, if we look at them, there is no reason to view them as being directly inspired by the HS ( a counting of people for example).

There's NO reason to think certain parts of scripture aren't God breathed/divinely inspired (theopneustos)?

What about 2 Timothy 3:16?
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

Paul,

It seems to me, if you are saying some parts of scripture aren't divinely inspired, as you said above, then you ARE doubting the validity of scripture.

[PaulSacramento]

Remember, just because we look at the OT and try to understand it from the historical perspective, doesn't me we are doubting it's validity as scripture.
It should also be noted that we should not take ALL parts of scripture with EQUAL measure of "infallibility" and what I mean is this:
There are passages that are explicitly stated as being divinely inspired ( pretty much anything Jesus said and every time a passage starts with "and God said..." for example) and others in which it may be implied and others that, if we look at them, there is no reason to view them as being directly inspired by the HS ( a counting of people for example).

There's NO reason to think certain parts of scripture aren't God breathed/divinely inspired (theopneustos)?

What about 2 Timothy 3:16?
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

Paul,

It seems to me, if you are saying some parts of scripture aren't divinely inspired, as you said above, then you ARE doubting the validity of scripture.

Look what I wrote Rick:

we should not take ALL parts of scripture with EQUAL measure of "infallibility" and what I mean is this:
There are passages that are explicitly stated as being divinely inspired ( pretty much anything Jesus said and every time a passage starts with "and God said..." for example) and others in which it may be implied and others that, if we look at them, there is no reason to view them as being directly inspired by the HS ( a counting of people for example).

This is of course my opinion.
But I don't think it is wrong per say to look at scripture with "degrees" of inspiration.
It doesn't make it any less inspired IMO.

[RickD]

Remember, just because we look at the OT and try to understand it from the historical perspective, doesn't me we are doubting it's validity as scripture.
It should also be noted that we should not take ALL parts of scripture with EQUAL measure of "infallibility" and what I mean is this:
There are passages that are explicitly stated as being divinely inspired ( pretty much anything Jesus said and every time a passage starts with "and God said..." for example) and others in which it may be implied and others that, if we look at them, there is no reason to view them as being directly inspired by the HS ( a counting of people for example).

There's NO reason to think certain parts of scripture aren't God breathed/divinely inspired (theopneustos)?

What about 2 Timothy 3:16?
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

Paul,

It seems to me, if you are saying some parts of scripture aren't divinely inspired, as you said above, then you ARE doubting the validity of scripture.

Look what I wrote Rick:

we should not take ALL parts of scripture with EQUAL measure of "infallibility" and what I mean is this:
There are passages that are explicitly stated as being divinely inspired ( pretty much anything Jesus said and every time a passage starts with "and God said..." for example) and others in which it may be implied and others that, if we look at them, there is no reason to view them as being directly inspired by the HS ( a counting of people for example).

This is of course my opinion.
But I don't think it is wrong per say to look at scripture with "degrees" of inspiration.
It doesn't make it any less inspired IMO.

Ok. I guess I'll just read your response as you're not literally and concretely meaning what you actually said.

[PaulSacramento]

Look at 1 Chronicles for example, it is basically a lineage telling from Adam to David.
It basically relies on Genesis and kings and is typically regarded as a "summary" book.
Inspired? sure.
Would you say it has the same divine inspiration as the prophesies in Daniel? or the visions of Isaiah ?

[RickD]

Look at 1 Chronicles for example, it is basically a lineage telling from Adam to David.
It basically relies on Genesis and kings and is typically regarded as a "summary" book.
Inspired? sure.
Would you say it has the same divine inspiration as the prophesies in Daniel? or the visions of Isaiah ?

Yes, of course. Either it's divinely inspired, or it isn't.

I don't see any of scripture as partly divinely inspired. That just doesn't make any sense. Either the Holy Spirit told the authors what to write, or He didn't. And if He did, then it's inspired. If He didn't, it's not inspired.

[Philip]

"Inspired" doesn't simply mean God approved something or caused it. It may or may not be prophetic or a "Thus saith the Lord." But it most certainly means God wanted it to be a part of the canon of Scripture! It may be a chronicling of evil acts, mere history. But make no mistake, CONTEXT is KING! When so many want to deny some apparent historical revelation in the Bible that is also referenced in the same context in multiple places, one needs to produce a compelling reason as to why that would be mere allegory or metaphor. What I have a problem with is those agreeing about all the things Jesus said about one's need for salvation, but when He also endorses the OT as Scripture or reinforces some passage as history, they cherry pick it as a passage to deny. To me, that is grossly inconsistent, dangerous, and often, self serving.