willhud9 wrote:

CookieJon wrote:

willhud9 wrote:I am merely saying, I do believe the church fathers got it wrong in some things, but in other things the chuch fathers got it right. Only a foolish Christian would accept Aquinas', Augustine's, Calvin's(and he is my favourite), Luther's, and many others works and opinions without making sure they agreed with biblical doctrine. In the case of Aquinas, I do believe that he was mistaken in saying "It's okay to beat your wife if she commits adultery" Aquinas should have known better.

Out of interest, which piece of biblical doctrine supports your view that he should have known better?

"For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins." Matthew 6:14-15

So you think no punishments should be meted out for any crimes whatsoever, is that right? Everyone should always be forgiven for everything??

CookieJon wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

CookieJon wrote:

Out of interest, which piece of biblical doctrine supports your view that he should have known better?

"For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins." Matthew 6:14-15

So you think no punishments should be meted out for any crimes whatsoever, is that right? Everyone should always be forgiven for everything??

Does the punishment need to be violent? Jesus in Matthew 5 says adultery is perfect cause for divorce. I do believe that's punishment enough. However, resorting to brutality because a wife was "unfaithful" is sickening. If husbands are commanded to love their wife, and she proved unfaithful, should that not stop the husband and make him wonder whether truly loved her and if he was the reason she was unfaithful? I'd give her the benefit of doubt.

willhud9 wrote:

CookieJon wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

"For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins." Matthew 6:14-15

So you think no punishments should be meted out for any crimes whatsoever, is that right? Everyone should always be forgiven for everything??

Does the punishment need to be violent?

That's not what you just said. You're splitting hairs now between violent and non-violent punishments when a second ago you said biblical doctrine dictates forgiveness, not punishment.

Would you like to retract your previous answer?

However, resorting to brutality because a wife was "unfaithful" is sickening.

To whom? That's just your opinion. Where's the biblical doctrine that says it's "sickening"??

If husbands are commanded to love their wife, and she proved unfaithful, should that not stop the husband and make him wonder whether truly loved her and if he was the reason she was unfaithful? I'd give her the benefit of doubt.

Again, that's just you. I want biblical doctrine.

Surely you're not now arguing that the Bible has to be interpreted according to the values of the society, or (Heaven forbid!) THE INDIVIDUAL?? Surely not, WIll!!! Tell me you're not a moral relativist, Will, because I'm beginning to suspect you.

willhud9 wrote:
I am merely saying, I do believe the church fathers got it wrong in some things, but in other things the chuch fathers got it right. Only a foolish Christian would accept Aquinas', Augustine's, Calvin's(and he is my favourite), Luther's, and many others works and opinions without making sure they agreed with biblical doctrine.

And if authors of biblical doctrine got it wrong? With all your extensive study on the subject, you know the book is not infallible in any way, so where is the 'anchor point', the point where we can say "This - this is divine doctrine, that on which we can anchor our theology, while this - this is most likely the private opinion of the author" ? Is it enough that the verses say "This is the word of the LORD"? Or is it enough that they are alleged quotes from Jesus? Or is internal consistency of the resulting theology key?

CookieJon wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

CookieJon wrote:

So you think no punishments should be meted out for any crimes whatsoever, is that right? Everyone should always be forgiven for everything??

Does the punishment need to be violent?

That's not what you just said. You're splitting hairs now between violent and non-violent punishments when a second ago you said biblical doctrine dictates forgiveness, not punishment.

Would you like to retract your previous answer?

No, not really, when "turn the other cheek and go the second mile" are all non-violent solutions found in biblical doctrine. So combine it with the concept and doctrine of forgiveness and I would imagine its easy to say that a man beating is wife is unreasonable punishment.

However, resorting to brutality because a wife was "unfaithful" is sickening.

To whom? That's just your opinion. Where's the biblical doctrine that says it's "sickening"??

The sickening part is of course my opinion, but I based it off of biblical doctrine. The biggest is the concept of forgiveness. If my non-existent wife committed adultery on me, who has she hurt aside from me? The "sin" was personally against me, no one else. If she was unfaithful, why was she? How much do I love her? If I loved her would I seriously condemn her to death. Joseph could have publicly declared Mary defiled and unfaithful but instead of having her killed or beaten, was going to send her away. A "non-violent solution" to adultery.

If husbands are commanded to love their wife, and she proved unfaithful, should that not stop the husband and make him wonder whether truly loved her and if he was the reason she was unfaithful? I'd give her the benefit of doubt.

Again, that's just you. I want biblical doctrine.

Surely you're not now arguing that the Bible has to be interpreted according to the values of the society?? Surely not, WIll!!!

No, there are concepts found within the Bible that are dependent and change on and with the society. The biggest that comes to my head is Paul's teachings that guys should not have long hair and woman should not have short hair. This is not Paul giving a command, but a societal "suggestion."

John P. M. wrote:

willhud9 wrote:
I am merely saying, I do believe the church fathers got it wrong in some things, but in other things the chuch fathers got it right. Only a foolish Christian would accept Aquinas', Augustine's, Calvin's(and he is my favourite), Luther's, and many others works and opinions without making sure they agreed with biblical doctrine.

And if authors of biblical doctrine got it wrong? With all your extensive study on the subject, you know the book is not infallible in any way, so where is the 'anchor point', the point where we can say "This - this is divine doctrine, that on which we can anchor our theology, while this - this is most likely the private opinion of the author" ? Is it enough that the verses say "This is the word of the LORD"? Or is it enough that they are alleged quotes from Jesus? Or is internal consistency of the resulting theology key?

There are certain verses in scripture which are the opinion of the author. An entire thread was created months ago on Psalm 137:9. A Psalm asking God for retribution for the apparent sins committed against the psalmist. Did God grant that request? No. But it still is a Psalm and is included in the Bible.

willhud9 wrote:

CookieJon wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

Does the punishment need to be violent?

That's not what you just said. You're splitting hairs now between violent and non-violent punishments when a second ago you said biblical doctrine dictates forgiveness, not punishment.

Would you like to retract your previous answer?

No, not really, when "turn the other cheek and go the second mile" are all non-violent solutions found in biblical doctrine. So combine it with the concept and doctrine of forgiveness and I would imagine its easy to say that a man beating is wife is unreasonable punishment.

Now Will, think carefully...

You've cited Matthew saying that we should forgive, and now you're quibbling about what is "reasonable" and "unreasonable" punishment.

Do you not see the contradiction here? Is it forgiveness all the way, or punishment (violent or otherwise)?? The two are mutually exclusive.

Would you like to retract your quote from Matthew now, or do I need to press the point further?


Also, let's not even start on doctrine which IS found in the Bible (never mind St Thomas) which I'm sure would "make you sick", and which is not merely a "suggestion" like your long/short hair example.

Do we really need to dredge up all the foul things that book mandates, or are you beginning to see the point?

willhud9 wrote:

John P. M. wrote:

willhud9 wrote:
I am merely saying, I do believe the church fathers got it wrong in some things, but in other things the chuch fathers got it right. Only a foolish Christian would accept Aquinas', Augustine's, Calvin's(and he is my favourite), Luther's, and many others works and opinions without making sure they agreed with biblical doctrine.

And if authors of biblical doctrine got it wrong? With all your extensive study on the subject, you know the book is not infallible in any way, so where is the 'anchor point', the point where we can say "This - this is divine doctrine, that on which we can anchor our theology, while this - this is most likely the private opinion of the author" ? Is it enough that the verses say "This is the word of the LORD"? Or is it enough that they are alleged quotes from Jesus? Or is internal consistency of the resulting theology key?

There are certain verses in scripture which are the opinion of the author. An entire thread was created months ago on Psalm 137:9. A Psalm asking God for retribution for the apparent sins committed against the psalmist. Did God grant that request? No. But it still is a Psalm and is included in the Bible.

This is a curious reply.
So - most verses in scripture are not the opinion of the author, then. And the reason we can know this, is because when the psalmist asked for something and God didn't grant it, that would mean it was the psalmist's personal agenda?
I don't want to get too personal and risk an ad hom, but I seem to smell some cognitive dissonance going on here, since you know well the origin of the texts in question, and on other, more practically geared threads on the origin of the Bible, I think you would agree to a great extent with modern biblical scholars. And yet you claim now that we can anchor our theology in the words of these biblical authors, as long as God within the stories granted their requests, or acted in such a way as to confirm their words. And this view is held, while simultaneously rejecting large parts of scripture, such as the most fantastical stories, even though they were perfectly consistent with the wishes and plans of God within the text.

willhud9 wrote:I am merely saying, I do believe the church fathers got it wrong in some things, but in other things the chuch fathers got it right.

But what is this, other than your subjective opinion? If, as you concede, even you yourself “can get it wrong, like everyone else (Aquinas, Augustine),” then how do you (or anyone) determine who’s right and who’s wrong?

willhud9 wrote:In the case of Aquinas, I do believe that he was mistaken in saying "It's okay to beat your wife if she commits adultery" Aquinas should have known better.

Then you’ve changed your tune. Earlier in the thread, you said that Aquinas was neither right nor wrong—he was merely upholding the prevailing punitive standards of 13th century Western Europe. So if Aquinas was mistaken, then he didn’t err on his own. Rather a wide swath of Christendom was mistaken, and for many hundreds of years after the promulgation of the gospel.

What’s the point of having a revelation if it doesn’t get properly figured out until, say, fifteen hundred years later, when the abolitionists come along to reveal the immorality of slavery? Or, for that matter, until patriarchal attitudes are discovered to infringe upon the personal integrity and civil rights of half the species? Or until an American teenager exposes the biblical mistranslations that obscured God’s true feelings about homosexuality?

I guess you could still have such a revelation, but it would be thoroughly indistinguishable from a morality that is man-made over time.

If Will can get it wrong, what's the point of this gift of prophecy thingy?

CookieJon wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

CookieJon wrote:
That's not what you just said. You're splitting hairs now between violent and non-violent punishments when a second ago you said biblical doctrine dictates forgiveness, not punishment.

Would you like to retract your previous answer?

No, not really, when "turn the other cheek and go the second mile" are all non-violent solutions found in biblical doctrine. So combine it with the concept and doctrine of forgiveness and I would imagine its easy to say that a man beating is wife is unreasonable punishment.

Now Will, think carefully...

You've cited Matthew saying that we should forgive, and now you're quibbling about what is "reasonable" and "unreasonable" punishment.

Do you not see the contradiction here? Is it forgiveness all the way, or punishment (violent or otherwise)?? The two are mutually exclusive.

I don't see a contradiction cookie, because I don't see forgiveness and punishment being mutually exclusive. If anything, I cannot give a cut and black or white answer to this issue. I just don't know.

Also, let's not even start on doctrine which IS found in the Bible (never mind St Thomas) which I'm sure would "make you sick", and which is not merely a "suggestion" like your long/short hair example.

Do we really need to dredge up all the foul things that book mandates, or are you beginning to see the point?

Probably not. I am aware of all the foul things found within the Bible. However, even from Biblical times, punishments changed. The punishment for stealing was not the same from Mosaic times to Pauline times. Society and culture did play a part in reforming punishment and regulations. That is what Paul discusses in Romans.

willhud9 wrote:First of all the end of Leviticus, is informally known as the Holiness code. This section was aimed nearly directly at the priesthood. [...] Second of all, many Biblical scholars are dubious about how much of Leviticus is still applicable being that Levite law ended after Christ.

A fact gleefully overlooked by proof-texters. I know you ain't that, Will, but what is your criteria? It appears to be wholesale abandonment of the Mosaic Law due to the spiritual regeneration of Christ. In which case, what do you claim as your source of authority? Paul of Tarsus? If that's the case, nowhere does Paul create a systematic formula for dispensing with the Mosaic Law. Often, as with the circumcision controversy, it's a mess. (As in Galatians c.2, where Paul rambles about separate gospels for the circumcised and uncircumcised.) If your authority is some categorical imperative found in Christ, what's your method for identifying and following this imperative?

Oh, and I don't see how Jesus (if the "law won't pass" saying is authentic) couldn't contradict Paul. The only way he couldn't contradict him is if all was fulfilled with the Resurrection, which isn't even proto-orthodox doctrine. Since the synoptics hadn't even developed a systematic Christology yet, this looks like highly dubious anachronism.

So I ask again: what's your ethical source (Romans 7 is a theological musing on the status of the Law, not a how-to) and how do you arrive at it?

Byron wrote:

willhud9 wrote:First of all the end of Leviticus, is informally known as the Holiness code. This section was aimed nearly directly at the priesthood. [...] Second of all, many Biblical scholars are dubious about how much of Leviticus is still applicable being that Levite law ended after Christ.

A fact gleefully overlooked by proof-texters. I know you ain't that, Will, but what is your criteria? It appears to be wholesale abandonment of the Mosaic Law due to the spiritual regeneration of Christ. In which case, what do you claim as your source of authority? Paul of Tarsus? If that's the case, nowhere does Paul create a systematic formula for dispensing with the Mosaic Law. Often, as with the circumcision controversy, it's a mess. (As in Galatians c.2, where Paul rambles about separate gospels for the circumcised and uncircumcised.) If your authority is some categorical imperative found in Christ, what's your method for identifying and following this imperative?

Oh, and I don't see how Jesus (if the "law won't pass" saying is authentic) couldn't contradict Paul. The only way he couldn't contradict him is if all was fulfilled with the Resurrection, which isn't even proto-orthodox doctrine. Since the synoptics hadn't even developed a systematic Christology yet, this looks like highly dubious anachronism.

So I ask again: what's your ethical source (Romans 7 is a theological musing on the status of the Law, not a how-to) and how do you arrive at it?

I do believe Romans 7:4 "Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another—to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God."

Covers it. as well as Romans 7:6 " But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter."

So 1) Paul is teaching that the law WAS fulfilled by Christ. 2) That is doctrine taught by the church. Or else all of the baptist seminars I have been to have been lying and saying it was. 3) I do not say the law is bad. I say the law no longer controls Christians. Christians are bound to a higher law which is the grace of Jesus Christ. Again, all of this can be found in Paul's and Peter's epistles as well as John's gospel.

willhud9 wrote:I do believe Romans 7:4 "Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another—to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God."

Covers it. as well as Romans 7:6 " But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter."

So 1) Paul is teaching that the law WAS fulfilled by Christ. 2) That is doctrine taught by the church. Or else all of the baptist seminars I have been to have been lying and saying it was. 3) I do not say the law is bad. I say the law no longer controls Christians. Christians are bound to a higher law which is the grace of Jesus Christ. Again, all of this can be found in Paul's and Peter's epistles as well as John's gospel.

Paul's take on the Mosaic Law appears to have been, roughly: the law is of God, so can't be bad; but it puts a burden on us that few can overcome, so it isn't our salvation, either. (This tension between the law's inadequacy, and its supposed God-given status, is something Paul never resolves.) We internalize moral law when we open ourselves to Christ (Galatians c.5-6, Romans c.12), but here's the catch: this "right conduct" follows (or exceeds) the Mosaic Law and 1st century Jewish ethical norms.

When Paul says we have been freed from the Law, he means we have been freed from the tyranny of commands that most of us cannot keep. He doesn't mean that the content of the law is suspended. Well, some of it is, on an ad hoc basis, but nowhere does Paul offer a systematic ethical system, or criteria by which we should assess the law. When we're in Christ, the Spirit should show us the way. Ironic that Paul's gone down as a legalist: he was pretty much a 1st century charismatic, making it up as he went along. The fault lies not in him but in those who canonized his correspondence and used them for a purpose for which they were never intended.

So we're left cherry picking ethics from the Bible. Nothing wrong with that per se, but unless we admit what we're doing, we end up investing flawed human choices with undeserved divine weight.

Does the discussion of which cherries are to be picked continue?

You completely misunderstood Aquinas. He clearly says that killing a wife is indeed a mortal sin, despite the law. And in the part you quoted now says ""Wherefore the husband who exercises this kind of control over his wife may not kill her, but he may accuse or chastise her in some other way. ""

Nine years later...

That's the fast-paced world of medieval theology for you.

Look at my silly opinions I held. I was such a wee babe.