Mr. Lofton originally asked me:
Cite for me, please, one Bible verse, one Scripture, that says, or indicates, that “EVERYONE” is a child of God. Thank you.
I replied:
I can’t. You have to take a more liberal interpretation of scripture to get the idea that we are all children of God.
To which he replied:
Thank you, Mr. Rowe for saying, truthfully, that you cannot not cite
one Bible verse, one Scripture, that says, or indicates, that “EVERYONE” is a child of God — that your view is based on “a more liberal interpretation of scripture to get the idea that we are all children of God.” So, what do you make of John 8:44ff? And how does your “more liberal interpretation of scripture” hermeneutic differ from, say just making stuff up about what God says because you want to believe what you want to believe? Thanks again.
First on what Scripture, properly understood, actually teaches, though I intensely study parts of the Bible that are relevant to my political-theological studies, I am not an expert in all biblical hermeneutic arguments. There are plenty of scriptures that on their surface seem contradictory, but good hermeneutics can "iron out." Just because I can't (yet) make the "sola-scriptura" case that all human beings are children of God doesn't mean that case can't be made. For instance, all five points of Calvinism are disputed on sola-scriptura grounds.
But more importantly, there is a rich history in Christendom of looking to more than just the Bible to discover God's will. The Roman Catholics, after Aquinas, who ultimately believed the Bible infallible, have their natural law tradition that supplements scripture. And there are also those Protestants like my friend Jim Babka who look to the natural law and findings of science while rejecting the Bible as infallible (but still believing most of it to be God's inspired Word). Now, they may be "believing what they want to believe." OR they may be discovering God's Will. Or maybe the atheists are right and you are all washed up.
I'm personally not much invested in a theology that says all humans are children of God. However, to the extent that there is an "America View" of political theology represented by the Declaration of Independence and the personal beliefs the most important Founding Fathers, such holds that all human beings are children of God.
It's precisely that view that makes human rights "unalienable" and consequently "universal." If the non-elect or non-regenerate are "children of the Devil," Mr. Lofton, I would ask, why should a "Christian" government treat them equally as the Declaration of Independence demands? There is plenty of textual authority in the Bible for UNEQUAL treatment of individuals and entire groups of people who were God's enemies, (children of the devil, as it were).
5 comments:
I'm personally not much invested in a theology that says all humans are children of God. However, to the extent that there is an "America View" of political theology represented by the Declaration of Independence and the personal beliefs the most important Founding Fathers, such holds that all human beings are children of God.
It's precisely that view that makes human rights "unalienable" and consequently "universal."
Elegant.
Thanks!
I'm late to the party here for such a quibble, but isn't there a difference b/w 'image of God' and 'child of God'? Inherent value stems from the former, while a special spiritual inheritance comes with the latter. All men are image bearers, but a choice has to be made for one to become a child of God.
I can see the theological distinction. This is a very poignant sermon on Hagar and Ishmael, who were cast out by Abraham and Sarah as not part of the the new nation of Israel. Yet God didn't turn his back on them...
"Child of God" may be a distinction without a difference.
You are the goods, Tom. Thanks for the sermon link.
My quibble isn't an us/them thing. The sun does indeed shine on us all, and 'children of the devil' was directed towards a religious audience.
Your introduction of Ishmael is intriguing. Surely he has the DNA, but he is the one that needs to decide whether or not to embrace becoming a 'child of God' - on God's terms.
It's my little pet peeve, and not worth too much bother in this discussion - but it makes me cringe when I see the folks over at PL choosing to read Mr. Rowe's 'elegance' in such a way as to obviate Ishmael's choice.
I don't want to go the Lofton route on this, I just thought this might bring a little more clarity while still being something Mr. Rowe could accept (he's a fairly prolific fellow) without compromising his more liberal perspective.
Post a Comment