Of course the words from Satan aren't inspired and shouldn't be taken as so; they are just inserted in a narrative. The narrative is inspired, not Satan's words. The book of Job is also almost entirely a narrative. Now, chapters 1 and 2 of the book of Ecclesiastes are a narrative, but not the rest of the book. So, what Solomon says in the rest of the book is as inspired as what Paul says in his letters.

All of what Solomon wrote was inspired. Chapter 3 is no more inspired than chapter 2.

So narrative is less inspired than teaching? Are the books of Samuel and Kings of inferior value to Isaiah and Jeremiah?

Thomas,

The point I made is that in an inspired narrative there may be words said by the characters that do not represent "the mind and will of the Spirit". In that sense, they are not inserted as inspired counsel to be followed by us, but they are just there to provide context to the narrative - e.g., the words of Satan, the words of Job's friends, the words of Rahab, etc.


Tom,

Of course chapter 3 is as inspired as chapter 2. The point is that if chapter 3 is not a narrative, there is nothing in it that could be theologically wrong.

Consider the teachings of the greatest teacher the world has even known, Jesus Christ. He told a story which was "theologically wrong" involving two men who do not sleep at death like they're theologically supposed to do, but who continue being conscious. Now the story does teach theological truth, which we can, and should learn from. But it takes discernment, as does the understanding of any spiritual truth.

This is just one example. Many more could be given. I'll mention just one. Maybe. You excluded Job's friends as being considered as conveying the mind of the Spirit, but what about Job? Is everything Job said theologically wrong? If so, what? Also, is nothing that any of Job's friends of value? (i.e., is any of it true?)

I'm sorry, but I can't stop at one. What about the Psalms? Are they a narrative? Or is everything in them theologically wrong? What about the following:



Does this represent the "mind and will of the Spirit"? Or does this:



I'm curious as to where you get the hermeneutic that if something is not a narrative, there is nothing that could be theologically wrong.

How far would you carry the not wrong idea? Is it only theologically that things cannot be wrong, or does that carry to other areas as well?

Tom,

Are you really affirming that Jesus said something theologically wrong? The parable of the rich man and Lazarus is not theologically wrong – it’s a parable! The dead are really speaking, but in their bodies, not in the form of disembodied souls.

About the book of Job. Of course in a narrative the characters can speak right things and wrong things. The immediate context and the context of the whole Bible will make clear which is which.

About Ps. 137:8,9, you ask if this represents the mind and will of the Spirit. In my view yes, it does. The psalmist is making a prophetic declaration – he is declaring what will take place, not praying for revenge. Isaiah says essentially the same in a parallel passage (Isa. 13:16-19). When the psalmist says that happy is he who destroys Babylon, he is predicting the success of the Medians and Persians.

As Ellen White said, there are difficult texts – so there are. But they can be understood in the light of the general context of the Bible, instead of being discarded as theologically wrong. There is a world of difference between saying that the Bible can contain theologically wrong statements anywhere, in the words of the prophets and of Jesus Himself, and saying that, in the narration of a story, the Bible doesn’t hide the wrong actions, attitudes and words of its characters.

I'm not saying that humans should ever put themselves as judges over what part of God's word they should or shouldn't obey. But they must always judge if what they hear is or is not from God.

For example, what would you do if you hear the command, "Take your son and sacrifice him to me"? Should you obey?

Who will choose for you? Nobody. You must choose for yourself. Obedience, like disobedience, is the act of the individual.

What is the crucial factor that will determine if you will obey or not?

Perfect love casts out fear. And I believe it is very possible, even common, to lovingly choose to deny our own desires in favor of God's desires. Essentially, "Not my will but Thine be done."

The complete submission of oneself to God is not necessarily based on fear. In fact, fear can never engender submission, but only compliance.



That is the desired goal. But obedience can, and must, come long before our thoughts become like His thoughts.

Well put (the second sentence; I don't think the first is strong enough).




I don't know what this means. Is obedience possible at all without a conviction of truth?



This is from the same quote your comment applies to. Note it says, "He does not obey." I believe this is correct. The *only* obedience which is of value is obedience which springs from the heart, out of a conviction of God's goodness and the rightness of what one is doing.

I think we may be on the same page. What do you think?

Are you really affirming that Jesus said something theologically wrong?

The theologically wrong was in quotes. Certainly the idea Jesus shared about the Abraham and Lazarus retaining their consciousness was theologically wrong. But Jesus used this wrong idea which they had to communicate a different truth. He met people where they were.

The parable of the rich man and Lazarus is not theologically wrong – it’s a parable! The dead are really speaking, but in their bodies, not in the form of disembodied souls.

The people Jesus was addressing didn't know this. Jesus just didn't choose to make an issue of it at the time. He met them where they were. *We* know what He said is not literally true, because we have the rest of Scripture to work with.

About the book of Job. Of course in a narrative the characters can speak right things and wrong things. The immediate context and the context of the whole Bible will make clear which is which.

Which is my point. It's not as simple as, "This is a narrative. Therefore it's not true. This isn't. Therefore everything can be taken without thought." For example, the statement that God repented that He had made man is not a narrative, yet you don't accept it as stated, because you don't believe that it harmonizes with what you believe the rest of Scripture to be saying.

About Ps. 137:8,9, you ask if this represents the mind and will of the Spirit. In my view yes, it does. The psalmist is making a prophetic declaration – he is declaring what will take place, not praying for revenge. Isaiah says essentially the same in a parallel passage (Isa. 13:16-19). When the psalmist says that happy is he who destroys Babylon, he is predicting the success of the Medians and Persians.

You're reinterpreting what is stated to say something else. So what was actually written, you agree (I assume), does not represent the mind of the spirit. But what it actually *means*, *that* expresses the mind of the Spirit. This is well and good, as it serves to bring out my point that truth requires spiritual discernment. It's not as simple as "this is a narrative, so it's out. this isn't, so nothing it says can be wrong."

As Ellen White said, there are difficult texts – so there are. But they can be understood in the light of the general context of the Bible, instead of being discarded as theologically wrong.

There is a world of difference between saying that the Bible can contain theologically wrong statements anywhere, in the words of the prophets and of Jesus Himself, and saying that, in the narration of a story, the Bible doesn’t hide the wrong actions, attitudes and words of its characters.

What does a "theologically wrong" statement mean? I don't think "right" and "wrong" are the right way of looking at this. I think revelation is progressive, and met its zenith in Jesus Christ. Nothing Moses said was "wrong," but he didn't have the breadth of wisdom and understanding that Christ had (to pick just one example). So Christ's revelation was "fuller," to choose a word.

The light grows brighter and brighter, until reaching the full brightness of the noonday sun. The dimmer light is still light, just not as bright.