God can write straight with crooked lines.

[Fence Sitter]

So the question I’m left with is this: Is Abraham meant to be a singular, unrepeatable crisis of faith—or a standing model for how moral uncertainty should be resolved when divine authority speaks?

When you say “meant,” I’m left asking: who is doing the meaning, and who is it intended for?

[Limnor]

So the question I’m left with is this: Is Abraham meant to be a singular, unrepeatable crisis of faith—or a standing model for how moral uncertainty should be resolved when divine authority speaks?

When you say “meant,” I’m left asking: who is doing the meaning, and who is it intended for?

Historically the story was intended for the nation of Israel as a way to explain its origins. The story has been adopted by the Apostle Paul as a way to explain adoption by faith into Isreal.

But expanding on your question, you’ve made me think about assumptions, and I realized that I’m assuming that, whatever its origins, the Abraham story operates as “truth.” Like Gad said, most Christians would automatically assume the truth of the Bible.

Setting that side for a moment, though it is an important identification of an assumption, is there value in the story with regard to how people think about moral uncertainty and divine authority? How is the story used when people appeal to it? Is it related to crooked and straight lines?

If that assumption and my point is off the mark for our discussion, I’m open to adjust, but if that assumption is accurate, then whether (and maybe how) Abraham is treated as singular event or generalized for everyone seems relevant.

[Philo Sofee]

Consider the Abrahamic test. The law says, "thou shalt not kill". But then an angel appears and says, "kill your son". The Abrahamic test seems like the perfect example of God using crooked lines. And I agree it's theoretically possible and likely the best if not only example of it. (I'm open to other suggestions). But once it's understood trusting whatever the Lord or his authorities says is the answer, then there is no more ambiguity.

The appeal to the Abrahamic test is helpful, and I appreciate that it was posed as a genuine question to MG rather than a settled claim.

I think, while we wait on MG’s reply, there may be room for additional exploration here. I’ve personally been challenged in my own thinking about the Abraham story—mostly from members on this board. And I appreciate the challenge.

For me—in my own mind—there has been what I think is an undercurrent of “Abraham’s actions must be justified.” But maybe there is something about the story and the lack of justification for his action that is meaningful.

Earlier we had discussed Kierkegaard’s view, and this morning I discovered that Kierkegaard had written specifically about Abraham in Fear and Trembling. Kierkegaard’s view is that Abraham’s action is intentionally non-transferable. He cannot and does not explain himself, and outside of trusting God’s promise that Abraham would become the father of many through Isaac, his specific action doesn’t serve as a model for believers, rather his trust in God is the model—God would provide the sacrifice and living offering, through bringing his son back from the dead if necessary.

By contrast, the Book of Mormon’s Nephi/Laban episode appears to do the opposite. Nephi explains his action and justifies it as authorized by God, which turns an exception of moral and ethical behavior into a model to follow. It was ok to do what he did because it fulfilled a higher command.

That difference matters for the “crooked lines” idea: Abraham preserves ambiguity and fear, while Nephi resolves ambiguity through authorized explanation. If Abraham is meant as the paradigm, the question becomes whether later examples are preserving that unresolved ambiguity and fear, or replacing it with certainty when authority is invoked.

So the question I’m left with is this: Is Abraham meant to be a singular, unrepeatable crisis of faith—or a standing model for how moral uncertainty should be resolved when divine authority speaks?

This is one of the singular most talked on pieces of Bible which scholarship has elaborated for literally millenia, so I have to keep my resonance short and sweet and incomplete. This is one place where the Hebrew and Septuagint Greek does open up avenues of interesting inquiry, but it has been a long time since I have looked at it, so I will forego them (unless you want me to jump into them, but it will take a couple days) and given an ever briefer answer, not FINAL however. I'm not gonna solve anything, I am just going to make some suggestions is all. The Bible treats Abraham’s binding of Isaac as a singular, unrepeatable crisis of faith not as a general method for resolving moral uncertainty by appeal to divine command.
What is held up as paradigmatic is Abraham’s trust, not his action, and crucially, the Bible refuses to turn that action into a transferable rule.

Now let’s look at that carefully. The biblical text itself refuses justification language so in Genesis 22, something striking happens. Abraham is commanded. Abraham acts. God intervenes. The promise is reaffirmed. So now, we get to see what never happens. Abraham does not explain himself. Abraham does not justify himself. Abraham does not appeal to precedent. Abraham does not teach anyone else to do likewise. So if I remember correctly, it's been a couple years since I read the Hebrew and never did get to finish the Greek, but I've done decently in the English and I honest to goodness cannot remember there ever being any Divine command or speech that says (pointing back to Isaac's sacrifice by Abraham) - “This is how you should act when God commands the unthinkable.” And I don't believe or recall that any humans, prophet or otherwise, say “Here is why this was morally correct.” This suggests to me that rather than being something that was just missed or slipped by, it is not an accident, it is theological. The reason why is important. Because there actually are places in the Bible that truly and vehemently forbid human sacrifice, which leads me to believe that later Scripture treats Abraham as an exception, not the true and proper template. The prophets close the door on repeating what Abraham attempted. In fact, later biblical tradition goes out of its way to forbid precisely the thing Abraham was commanded to do.

Deuteronomy 12:31 explicitly condemns child sacrifice as something God hates.

Jeremiah 7:31 says such acts “never entered my mind.”

Ezekiel 20 reframes Israel’s history to emphasize God’s opposition to such practices.

So it seems to me that if Genesis 22 were meant as a standing model, these texts would have had to carve out exceptions. They do not. They erase the category entirely. The get rid of the entire theological strain! That tells us something decisive here. Abraham is not being positioned as a repeatable example of moral override.

I think the New Testament also comes into play in this instance, since its interpretation of Abraham is narrow and careful. When Abraham is invoked later, notice what is praised.

Hebrews 11:17–19 - Abraham is praised for trusting God’s promise, not for suspending ethics as such. The text adds an interpretive key - “He considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead.” So, what we are seeing is the author limits Abraham’s faith to confidence in God’s promise, not obedience-as-a-blank-check.

James 2:21–23 - James links Abraham’s act to faith being completed, not to moral reasoning such as Nephi does on his murder of Laban in the Book of Mormon. There is also nothing of divine command theory showing the ins and outs in James Epistle either. Neither passage says “Do what God tells you, even if it violates moral law.” Neither do they propose “This is how believers should resolve ethical conflict.” What they do do however is significant I think. They keep Abraham singular. God Himself resolves the crisis, not Abraham.

Another overlooked detail is that Abraham does not complete the act. (some of the apocryphal stories have him complete it, but that's not our focus for the time being). The moral horror is stopped by God. That matters because the story’s climax is not Abraham’s obedience which so many churches presume is the issue. No, the issue is it is God’s refusal to let the act occur. The way the scriptures is actually written shows
human action reaches its limit. Now it is time for Divine provision to step in and interrupt the whole process. Now, this means something else as well theologically however.

The promise is preserved without blood. That is not a model for moral certainty. It is a narrative about the boundary of human obedience.
Biblical faith trends away from command-based ambiguity. the further we get into the history of Israel and her interactions with God across the biblical canon, the more we see moral clarity increases rather than decreases. And it is especially in The Law which is what codifies moral norms.

The Prophets insist God does not delight in sacrifice. Wisdom literature stresses discernment and fear of the Lord, not secret commands. Jesus explicitly rejects violence done “for God.” All this seems to point to the fact that if Abraham were meant as a standing model, we would expect reinforcement of it all, and much greater explanations and details of times, and places (DO they have to be holy to enact the sacrifice?, etc.) Instead, what we see is containment and elimination of the entire structure.

Abraham preserves ambiguity and fear. Yes, and the Bible does not resolve that ambiguity by appealing to authority. But it does resolve it actually. It declares the act unrepeatable, redirecting faith toward trust and promise, and closing off the moral pathway Abraham briefly walks. So, this makes it appear that Abraham is more of a thresh hold figure, not action that becomes a commandment or policy for faith.
Abraham is a singular, unrepeatable crisis. So, while his faith is a paradigm to emulate, his action is not supposed to be copied by everyone.
The story teaches trust without granting permission. Moral ambiguity is endured, it's not made into an institution of the Law and the Prophets.
The Bible never gives believers permission to resolve ethical terror by saying “God told me so.” When later texts do that, they are already stepping outside the Abrahamic pattern.

[MG 2.0]

Question for MG: How does the testimony factor into a world where God writes straight with crooked lines?

To me, the testimony is the perfect example of why the Church teaches that God writes straight with straight lines.

But here's the thing. Spiritual experiences of each person which may lead to a testimony is often a "crooked line" filled with personal struggle and doubt before reaching a "straight" conclusion. Children and a certain number (who knows?) of others excepted. But even then, those folks may be literally on that crooked line with hopes of reaching a straight line conclusion or testimony. As God works in and through the experiences of individuals exercising agency there are obviously going to be some crooked lines along the way. It is always a work in process as God, "Makes His paths straight" in the work of bringing to pass the salvation/exaltation of His children. It's definitely not a straight line...for us.

See Hebrews 12:13; Isaiah 40:3; Acts 13:10

The missionaries follow a formula. If you pray about the Book of Mormon and find out it's true, that implies Joseph Smith was a true prophet. If Joseph was a true prophet, the church is true. If the church is true, then all the commandments like tithing are also true. So as soon as you admit you KNOW the Book of Mormon is true, all the dominoes logically fall from there.

"Knowing" the Book of Mormon is true does not automatically remove the need for continued faith or "crooked" wrestling with other complex doctrines or history. And as I alluded to above, "knowing" is open for introspective consideration as to what that might mean from one individual to the next. And it will be along a spectrum line of knowing. All "knowing" may not be qualitatively the same. There will be some 'crookedness' involved that may over time be straightened out through continued obedience, prayer, fasting, service, etc.

Consider the Abrahamic test. The law says, "thou shalt not kill". But then an angel appears and says, "kill your son". The Abrahamic test seems like the perfect example of God using crooked lines. And I agree it's theoretically possible and likely the best if not only example of it. (I'm open to other suggestions).

We might consider that the crookedness or ambiguity (interesting how the two go together at times) created an ethical paradox in regard to the command that was given. It may have been essential to the test and was never completely 'ironed out' until the straight line of obedience was 'chosen' by Abraham. As we consider the Sorites Paradox we can see that Abraham (we may not know the whole story, only what is written) has to place grain by grain of sand to the pile of faith/obedience/knowledge before God was able to confer upon him the title of Father of All Nations. My guess is it wasn't just a fluke.

Abraham was prepared and worthy.

But once it's understood trusting whatever the Lord or his authorities says is the answer, then there is no more ambiguity.

There may be a sliding scale there. Folks are still going to have their own struggles and thoughts. Ambiguity and a certain amount of 'positive knowledge/faith' can be enough to keep someone on the straight path even with one's own twists and turns following their own crooked path.

If all you have to know is "follow the prophet" then God is writing with straight lines, even if you are unable to personally confirm the line geometry.

It's a process, to be sure. The Sorites Paradox applies to the development of faith, one small spiritual insight (a grain) doesn't make a testimony (a heap), but over time, God uses these disparate, "crooked" grains to build a "straight" foundation of belief.

A brief respite in a thread that has been thoroughly derailed. Thanks for that.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

I'm going to quote another poster on another thread dealing with another topic...but it may apply here:

bill4long:
Nothing goes in a absolute straight line anywhere. Strong or weak gravity, spacetime is mangled in such as way by the aggregate gravitational effects, stretching all the way back to the Big Bang, that there is absolutely nothing like absolutely "straight line" travel. It it is fairly imperceptable and irrelevant at relatively short distances.
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=160738&start=140

I had discussed this earlier in the thread before things went onto the Tolkien tracks.

Bill makes an important point in the bolded/underlined sentence.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

Abraham preserves ambiguity and fear. Yes, and the Bible does not resolve that ambiguity by appealing to authority. But it does resolve it actually. It declares the act unrepeatable, redirecting faith toward trust and promise, and closing off the moral pathway Abraham briefly walks. So, this makes it appear that Abraham is more of a thresh hold figure, not action that becomes a commandment or policy for faith.
Abraham is a singular, unrepeatable crisis. So, while his faith is a paradigm to emulate, his action is not supposed to be copied by everyone.
The story teaches trust without granting permission. Moral ambiguity is endured, it's not made into an institution of the Law and the Prophets.
The Bible never gives believers permission to resolve ethical terror by saying “God told me so.” When later texts do that, they are already stepping outside the Abrahamic pattern.

Excellent and very thorough explanation, thank you Philo.

[Gadianton]

It was a good idea to bring in Kierkegaard, so does Kierkegaard justify the OP title? I'd say yes, if K is right, God is definitely using crooked lines.

Limnor says it was a one-off situation that can't be generalized, but it's hard not to speculate on other kinds of related tests. For instance, what if an angel with a flaming sword commanded Joseph Smith to marry a 14-year-old girl?

[I Have Questions]

It was a good idea to bring in Kierkegaard, so does Kierkegaard justify the OP title? I'd say yes, if K is right, God is definitely using crooked lines.

Limnor says it was a one-off situation that can't be generalized, but it's hard not to speculate on other kinds of related tests. For instance, what if an angel with a flaming sword commanded Joseph Smith to marry a 14-year-old girl?

What would be the tell tale signs that would differentiate between a God actually “writing straight with crooked lines”, and a religious believer randomly ascribing to God good things that are really down to luck, chance, coincidence and otherwise unplanned happenstance?

That might be a better question for MG. But he won’t answer it.

[Rivendale]

It was a good idea to bring in Kierkegaard, so does Kierkegaard justify the OP title? I'd say yes, if K is right, God is definitely using crooked lines.

Limnor says it was a one-off situation that can't be generalized, but it's hard not to speculate on other kinds of related tests. For instance, what if an angel with a flaming sword commanded Joseph Smith to marry a 14-year-old girl?

What would be the tell tale signs that would differentiate between a God actually “writing straight with crooked lines”, and a religious believer randomly ascribing to God good things that are really down to luck, chance, coincidence and otherwise unplanned happenstance?

I think RFM had a good point when he said God hides in the forest of coincidences. Believers like to invent reasons for the real jagged parts of the line and when that fails it is merely seeing through a glass darkly. The Texas sharpshooter technique is an often used strategy to tame the EKG graph.

[Limnor]

Understanding check: Gad, I think your earlier point was that once a person publicly portrays their faith as knowing, any remaining ambiguity must transfer to obedience, and straightening the line happens by yielding to authority, not by allowing ambiguity to remain viable, even if there are problems along the way. Close?