New Game: What does the bible explicitly state?

So, the Southern Baptist Church is moving away from the Boy Scouts, because nothing says being like Jesus like moving away from children, even children you find vulgar, even children who represent what you consider the sickest of sins…

But, it is one statement in this that has caught my attention.

For Southern Baptist pastor Tim Reed, it was Scripture versus the Scouts. “God’s word explicitly says homosexuality is a choice, a sin,” said Reed, pastor of First Baptist Church of Gravel Ridge in Jacksonville, Arkansas.

So, let’s play a game. Explicit means “fully revealed  or expressed without vagueness.”

What does the bible explicitly state? Now… the rules are simple:

  1. If the stated view can be challenged by another verse, then it is not explicit.
  2. You cannot deny facts such as historical criticism, or even lexicons.

So, what does the bible explicitly state?


Enhanced by Zemanta

You Might Also Like

21 Replies to “New Game: What does the bible explicitly state?”

  1. I’m pretty sure that Jesus liked children (Matthew 19:14) and wants them encouraged and blessed more than He liked lawyers and wanted people to be bossed around (Matthew 23).

    I haven’t found that “homosexuality is a choice” verse yet. I’m sure it’s there somewhere, right?

  2. The Bible _explicitly states_ that Southern Baptist pastor Tim Reed has his head up his tuckus.

    I think. Lemme check.

    Whoops, no, my source for that turns out to be a combination of “reason” and “private revelation,” rather than “Scripture.” My bad.

    1. Speaking of private revelation, I saw that the LDS church actually accepted the change (for the kids). I NEVER thought I would say that the LDS church had a more liberal view than the Southern Baptists. Although Brigham is probably turning over in his grave right now.

  3. Who cares? Does anyone care what the Bible explicitly states? Even the self-proclaimed followers insert into it pretty much whatever’s in their hearts and minds.

  4. This is a cool game – I just played a round at Matrix – but there was no referee. (Not sure there is here either – I don’t see any explicit mention of doctrine in your rules).

    so my first entry is: God sits on the circle of the earth – הַיֹּשֵׁב עַל־חוּג הָאָרֶץ – rather good I think – who sits there today?

    my second concerns ultrasound:
    not concealed are my bones from you
    when I was made in secret
    embroidered in the lowest parts of earth
    your eyes saw my embryo
    and in your book all of them were written
    days were fashioned
    and its one was in them

    the lowest parts of the earth ‘means’ of course in the womb – we are, after all, earthlings, cosmic dustlings.

    A third round is: God is Spirit; God is light; God is love. A trio of explicit doctrines.

    I love what the Bible gives to me – but it sure takes some unpacking.

    My first comment got lost in spam

  5. I’m beginning to get the impression, based on your continual barking ‘is that a doctrine‽’ and the deduction of arbitrary amounts of points, that the rules aren’t quite as simple as you state. There seems to be at least a third rule, that we’re looking for doctrines, not statements of fact.

    I hope that commenting on the unstated rules is not also ruled out by an unstated rule…

    1. what unstated rule? Doctrines are an expression of points we draw from Scripture.

      “Explicitly states” is a rather different matter. Scripture says nothing.

      Thanks for playing, but you get minus 666 points.

      1. It’s playing to ask for clarification about the rules? More unwritten rules!

        It does explicitly state that “Jesus wept” (John 11:35). That’s clearly stated, it’s not ambiguous in the English translation. Is it ambiguous in the Greek? And, as far as I know, isn’t contradicted by anything else in the Bible (is there a verse saying “Jesus never wept”?).

        So this would seem to meet rules 1 and 2.

        You objected to this as it isn’t a doctrine. I’m confused by this objection, as there was no mention of doctrines in your original post. Evidently I’m not the only one who’s confused by this.

        You seem to be trying to argue now that you didn’t need to mention it, because anything we draw from scripture is a doctrine. That strikes me as a bit of a strange definition of ‘doctrine’, but accepting it for the moment, why isn’t ‘Jesus wept’ a doctrine? It’s something we draw from scripture, isn’t it?

        And if there is a distinction between something we draw from scripture, and something that scripture states, and you were only after things that we draw from it, then, well, you didn’t mention it, so if it’s a rule it’s an unwritten one.

        Now you’re saying ‘scripture says nothing’, which is even more confusing, because, well, open a Bible, and there’s a lot of stuff written down there. It mostly seems fine grammatically, and it’s difficult to believe that every statement could be contradicted by another statement.

        Unless this is a cryptic way of making a logical point that because it contains at least one contradiction, using the standard formulations of sentential logic anything can be concluded from it, which in a way is as bad or worse than saying nothing whatsoever?

          1. I should have kept my big mouth shut. At least then I could have retired with the Negative Quiz Show Score of the Beast!

          2. Here’s the thing… Unless take small, minute statements like “Jesus Wept” or “Jesus went to Galilee” then there is nothing explicit in Scripture.

            Doctrines and morality statements (themselves a form of doctrine) are not so explicit. They are derived from Scripture, drawn from it, but putting a line here and a line there together to create what we believe is the theology Scripture has, or that the Church believes the Spirit tells us.

            But to say, for instance, the Trinity is explicit in Scripture is false. To say, however, Scripture is a doctrine drawn from Scripture and reflected upon is another thing altogether.

            Plus, 121212.24 points.

  6. I’m confused! Has Joel started a game of nomic mau? Is it just some kind of psychological torture he’s indulging in? Help!

  7. Pretty sure it says this:
    John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God. 1:2 The Word was with God in the beginning. 1:3 All things were created by him, and apart from him not one thing was created that has been created. 1:4 In him was life, and the life was the light of mankind. 1:5 And the light shines on in the darkness, but the darkness has not mastered it.

    (and if you dont know which part of that is doctrine, hand back your biblioblogging license!)

Leave a Reply, Please!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.