Many people seem to confuse faith in God with faith in the inerrancy of the Bible. Ergo, if you question the Bible, you’re questioning God. Not so–the Bible and God are not the same thing. God is…um…let’s see here…okay, let’s just say God is God. (We’ll solve that easy question later.) But the Bible? That’s a quantifiable, human- made compilation of some really awesome/terrifying/boring stories written by humans about God. We might say that many of these humans were divinely inspired, but that is not the same thing as saying that the Bible is on par with God (or Jesus).
This question came up at another site when somebody made the following statement:
“As the Bible is ALL ABOUT Jesus to declare it to be in error is to cast doubt about Jesus.”
(Here’s what I had to say):
You are conflating faith in Jesus with faith in the accuracy of the Bible, but one does not depend on the other. It is belief in Jesus Christ – not in biblical accuracy – that is the source of our salvation. Whether we believe the Bible is “in error” to some degree is ultimately a secondary matter.
Believing in Jesus Christ as Savior does not mean that you must avert your eyes to the contradictions, and yes, there are plenty, found in the Bible. Neither must we make excuses for depictions of horrific violence, nor for the disturbing ancient practices found in the Bible. The Bible itself does not claim that it is infallible, just like it does not claim that it must be taken 100% literally.
Having said that, I do not believe that the Bible is “in error” so much as “in flux”. Throughout both the Old and New Testaments there are full on disagreements between the biblical authors themselves–particularly how previous texts should be interpreted, or what God’s real priorities were.
In some cases, biblical authors wrote texts designed to “correct” what they saw as flaws in the standard versions of particular stories. (For a classic example of this, read the David narratives in II Samuel, then read how the author of the Chronicles retold the story, changing significant details as he saw fit.)
But you can call into question some parts of the Bible without saying the whole thing is useless! The Bible was written by faithful Israelites and Christians, many of whom we would consider to be divinely inspired. It is our heritage, and there is much to be learned from our ancestors.
What’s the difference between these two statements:
The Bible is the word of God.
The Bible is the “inspired” word of God.
My hard line pentecostal Pastor always tells the congregation never to go to a church that teaches the Bible being the “inspired” word of God only.
I’m not sure why my post is being republished here, but thanks for the attribution at any rate.
asks,
“What’s the difference between these two statements:
The Bible is the word of God.
The Bible is the “inspired” word of God.”
To me, the reason the statement “the Bible is the word of God” is insufficient is because God’s Word exists outside of and apart of any one book, or translation, or understanding thereof. The Bible may be a manifestation of God’s Word, but it is not, in and of itself, the totality of God’s Word. Kind of like how all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.
Another problem is that when people declare that the Bible is the Word of God, implicit in this declaration is their belief that their particular understanding and interpretation of the Bible amounts to God’s Word. And it is very dangerous to conflate our own ways, thoughts, and understandings – even our best thoughts, ways, and understandings – with those of God.
The best thing for me to do is not to assume that the totality of God’s Word is contained in a book and understandable to me, but rather to pray to receive the blessing of a Living Word from God, which is able to manifest however God so chooses: in the Holy Spirit, in the incarnate, gathered Body of Christ, and the written Word as well, among other things. The Bible is not God. The Bible is also not the totality of the Word of God.
Peace,
TR
[...] The Bible is not God (signposts02.wordpress.com) [...]
Sorry for the formatting error in my comment above. If an editor wanted to fix it, I’d appreciate it…thanks.
I suspect you are a christian humanist rather than what would be termed a believer, or a disciple of Christ. A voyeur of the Christian God rather than a partaker in the fullest sense. On the ship as a stowaway spy more than as a passenger or crew member. Neither in nor out, still with questions and doubts, unsure about the authenticity of what the faithful call ‘sold-out’ to Christ.
Faith in Jesus is paramount to salvation, but you can’t separate the accompanying Logos from Christ. The Bible is not, on the face of it, God, but it contains the Word which is of God, and is, therefore, divinely inspired, and divinely available to us still. The Logos is written but the Rhema is alive, and they are not separate.
Paul talks about living in the Spirit of the Word, which gives life, and not the letter of the Law, which kills. However it remains the same Word, and the same Law. It kills because of the flesh, and the carnality of the sinner. It gives life where the carnal man is converted, through faith, into the spiritual man. Either demonstrates the power of the Word.
To be carnally minded is death, through the sin nature, and through the Law. To be spiritually minded is life and peace, through righteousness, and through the Spirit of the Word. Same Word, different response.
The Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus has redeemed from the Law of sin and death. Yet there is no difference to what God has said, and written and prophesied and declared, or what men have, by inspiration, spoken in times past.
The Mosaic Law had a glory which was of God, and was no less relevant to the New Testament writers, and, indeed to Christ, than it was to Moses and his descendants. Jesus fulfilled all the requirements of the Law. He did not deny it. He lived it.
Abraham’s faith has just as much presence today as it did when he believed God for the Seed, and the Seed has influenced the entire planet for generations, multiplying, increasing. God’s Word reverberates across the universe. Stars are impacted by God’s dealings with men through the Word.
Living by the Spirit of the Word, or Law, is just as relevant to us today as it ever was. The Law, a stop-gap added because of Israel’s transgression, until faith came in Christ, is superseded by the new covenant, but the Old and New Testaments were based on the same promises. Those promises were uttered in Genesis, long before the Mosaic Law. They have impact on us today. They live. They bring life. They seed, they produce, they motivate and mobilise.
There is still a live and living element to the Word, which is called a two-edged sword, with the power to divide asunder the soul and spirit, bone and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. We are open and naked and exposed before him.
We cannot hide or run or ignore the very presence of the Word of God, and it’s power emanates as much from what is written as what is spoken, and is of the Christ, who is the Word made flesh and presented to us by the Father, and is still present in heaven, overseeing the building of the Church. He is the Living Word.
God is as much directed by his Word as we should be. He has spoken things into being, and he is not a man that he should lie. He will not break his word or his promises.
He has directed affairs from afar and will see them through to completion without violating what he has decreed. His divine signature brings power and ignites the souls of those who hear. Let him who has eyes to see and ears to here see and hear.
Those who tiptoe around the fringes of God’s purposes look sparingly into the mirror and see a vague reflection, but turning away, quickly forget who they are, or who they could be in Christ. Some see nothing. Some are convinced there is nothing to see.
Some look and compare the heavenly with their earthly understanding and completely miss the point of what God has revealed. They look with the letter and miss the Spirit, believe the peripheral and gaze on the perplexing as if it is a hinderance to truth, whereas, in reality, there is a greater truth staring them in the face.
The christian humanist starts with the natural and seeks Christ there. He will be seen, but he is the spiritual man, the heavenly. That is where you need to look.
Steve, you can suspect whatever you want. And you are free to define me according to whatever your heart’s desire. That’s one of the perks of being a pseudonymous person on the internet; far be it from me to waste both of our time dispelling you of your judgments.
Your eloquent construction of faith is nice and reads convincingly, but is in many ways beside the points raised above. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
In peace,
TR
Thanks. I thought these were the thoughts of Greg, actually, but, nevertheless, what I say applies.
You say, ‘It is belief in Jesus Christ – not in biblical accuracy – that is the source of our salvation.’
But how do we know, without Bible accuracy that the Jesus we believe is the Jesus of the Bible, and the gospel we preach or adhere to is the gospel of Christ?
Mormons believe in Jesus, as do Jehovah’s Witnesses. But we know that both their Bibles and their interpretation of who Christ is and what the gospel is are warped and either added to or subtracted from.
There are actually fewer errors than you make out, and far more consistencies. Since men witnessed events from different backgrounds, perspectives and understandings you would expect some minor differences. The main narrative, however, is consistent and trustworthy.
And, as I pointed out, the Word is living. It is not merely ink on paper. It has the life of the Spirit. There are prophecies being worked out to this day and will be beyond the end of this age.
There are man passages with scripture which can be applied to life and have the same results when applied, and I am talking about supernatural, even miraculous results. There is nothing bring about the Word of God.
I do not worship the written Word, but I do know that it has the touch of the Divinity on it, and is anointed.
Nothing I have said is beside the point. It is the point.
That should read ‘many’ passages, and there is nothing ‘boring’ about the Word.
By the way, I ‘came out’ from the pseudonym and I am known to other contributors. I just use Steve because that is who I am to friends.
Try this for evidence of the importance of defining the Word accurately for doctrine:
Galatians 1
8* But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.
9* As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.
10* For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ.
11* But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man.
12* For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.
How will you know the accuracy of the gospel without the written Word?
We have the written word, and the tradition of the church. however it is a fallacy to think that just because we have a text we can know the accuracy of the gospel.
5PS and Margot preach a different gospel to Steve, CCCer preaches a slightly different one and the Westboro Baptists preach a very different gospel. Yet all believe in the inerrancy of scripture, and believe that their gospel comes directly from scripture (and therefore from God).
At the micro-level there are as many gospels as there are believers.
@ wazza2 – you tell us what the gospel is.
On the essentials we would agree, however. We would be quite similar in the basics and foundational understanding. It is on issues like who has access to the gospel we would differ. As long as the gospel is preached that is of no real consequence. It is the same as Whitfield and Wesley in their day. They agreed on essentials and differed on peripherals, but both were effective.
We agree that the written Word is the basis for our discussions, and proof, and the ultimate judge of whether we are accurate or in error, and that the gospel is not open to interpretation, but is as presented unless clearly indicated.
That you could not agree to, and so would have no means of determining accuracy, nor would you accept our appeal to scripture.
So issues such as the Godhead, Genesis, miraculous, virgin birth, Adam’s existence, Christ’s divinity, prophecy, inerrancy of scripture, and the like are lost on you because you are able to say they rely on flawed human ideology, and have no evidence in science.
So science comes before faith in the humanist christian worldview, and the gospel is open to interpretation, and can become far more allegorical than it actually is.
A text always has to be interpreted, and therefore cannot be a proof or an ultimate judge of anything. A person has to interpret it and judge based on that.
You have an interpretation of the scriptures, and an interpretation of the gospel, just as I and everyone else does. That is why there is such a variation in Christian beliefs and denominations.
You claim I have no means of determining accuracy, and thats true, but neither do you or anyone else have an absolute means of determining the accuracy of anything. Those who make the Bible their God will be disappointed to find it has feet of clay.
Science dosen’t come before faith in my worldview, they are not in conflct. If you want to put a faith-based claim before science, good luck because it hasn’t worked in the last 2000 years.
@ Wazza2 – but what is the gospel?
‘The natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.’
Unless we have the Spirit we will always be subject to nature and slaves to what we see with our eyes, touch, taste, and experience through our senses. We will be conditioned by what has been and not what will be.
Science is good and useful and has its place, but it cannot deal with the Spirit. There is no science of faith.
It cannot understand or know or even consider the mysteries of the Word of God. It has no place for the Church. It has no grasp or definition for grace.
So when the carnal mind embraces science it is subject to the temporal, but God is a Spirit, and those who approach him need to do so in the Spirit.
His Word is essentially his covenant written to help us understand another way of life to the natural we live in. It is a seeming paradox, I know, but nevertheless it is real.
It is through the Spirit that we understand the Word.
Margot, the Gospel is the Good news of salvation through the death and resurrection of Jesus.
@Wazza2,
“A text always has to be interpreted, and therefore cannot be a proof or an ultimate judge of anything.”
But Wazza, I have already pointed out to you the fact that words have power in and of themselves:
‘[...] When Jesus said, “I am he,” they drew back and fell to the ground.’ John 18:5
Jesus simply spoke to them three simple words: “I am he”. Why did they draw back and fall down?
“You [don't] have an absolute means of determining the accuracy of anything.”
We most certainly do: the Holy Spirit was sent to “lead us into all truth”.
“You claim I have no means of determining accuracy, and that’s true [...]”
So how can you possibly assert with any confidence that “the Gospel is the Good news of salvation through the death and resurrection of Jesus.” ?
Your have confirmed with your own words that you have no basis for fully trusting anything that is written in the Bible. Your statement also constitutes a tacit admission that you are not being led into all truth by the Holy Spirit.
So do you have faith in Jesus or the bible Steve ccc’er and Margot?
@CCCer, how you or anyone else can ascertain the presence of the Holy Spirit through comments on an internet forum is beyond me.
The Holy Spirit is nothing if not an embodied presence. It comes not via intellect, argument or ‘right answers’ on a website but by the grace and good promise of God, poured out upon real flesh.
Peace to you,
TR
@Greg,
“So do you have faith in Jesus or the bible Steve ccc’er and Margot?”
I trust the Bible and I have faith in Jesus.
Tom…I like you very much!
I posted your post on this blog because it was a very simple but clear article aboutbthe difference between faith in Jesus and faith in the bible which most people commenting on this blog don’t seem to be able to distinguish between.
Ccc’er do you trust your family?
@Greg, thanks. It’s an honor, though initially I was wondering if it was some kind of computerized resposting thing. This never would’ve gotten so much discussion on my own blog…!
Steve
“I suspect you are a christian humanist rather than what would be termed a believer, or a disciple of Christ. A voyeur of the Christian God rather than a partaker in the fullest sense. On the ship as a stowaway spy more than as a passenger or crew member. Neither in nor out, still with questions and doubts, unsure about the authenticity of what the faithful call ‘sold-out’ to Christ.”
That’s incredibly unfair. You make out that if someone has doubts or questions about God and the Bible that they are basically not being a disciple of Christ. Do you not have questions? Do you not have doubts? Or do you not think about the Bible and what you believe?
I suspect that your comment lacks discernment and wisdom.
@TR,
“@CCCer, how you or anyone else can ascertain the presence of the Holy Spirit through comments on an internet forum is beyond me.”
I assume that you are referring to my assertion that “[Wazza's] statement also constitutes a tacit admission that [he is] not being led into all truth by the Holy Spirit.”
That was an observation based on Wazza’s own admission that he has “[...] no means of determining accuracy [...]”. The Holy Spirit is our means of determining accuracy, since He illuminates the scriptures and bears witness to the truth. Ergo, if Wazza has no means of determining accuracy, then it is clear that he is not being led into all truth by the Holy Spirit. I haven’t made the claim; Wazza has actually said it himself.
And of course, it is indeed possible to ascertain the presence of the Holy Spirit through comments on an Internet forum, or by any other means, or by no particular means at all. This is done using discernment, which all Christians have to some degree, and with which some are particularly gifted in order to carry out their particular ministry within the church. (Although perhaps “ascertain” is really the wrong term; one might more correctly refer to this as being “revelation”, since the knowledge comes from God, rather than through the logical processes of the mind).
@Greg,
“Tom…I like you very much!”
Yeah, well I miss 5PS!
@CCCer, I also trust the Bible, for what it is, but I do not trust that the inherited or even most common interpretations of it are necessarily the Word of God. Way too much human error and corruption involved in the process of writing, translating, canonizing, and interpreting these texts over the years. We must love and look to these sacred texts, but to deify them actually deifies the humans who made interpretive decisions about them in years past.
@Greg,
“Ccc’er do you trust your family?”
Yes, Greg, of course I do.
(And in the event that they don’t prove worthy of that trust, I know where they live).
Of course you trust your family…but not because they’re innerrant I imagine?
I thinknyou get where I’m going with this.
CCCer,
“Yeah, well I miss 5PS!”
CCCer…. I like you very much!
Does that make you feel better?
@TR,
“@CCCer, I also trust the Bible, [...] but [...]”
I trust the Bible, without qualification.
“We must love and look to these sacred texts [...]”
“Sacred texts”? Sounds more like what a Hare Krishna would call the Bhagavad Gītā.
“[...] but to deify them [...]“.
“Trusting” is not the same thing as “deifying” (not by a very long shot).
@Greg,
“Of course you trust your family…but not because they’re inerrant I imagine?
I think you get where I’m going with this.”
Well, I’m hoping that it doesn’t involve me telling my wife that she sometimes makes mistakes…
@Bones,
“CCCer…. I like you very much!
Does that make you feel better?”
Yes thanks Bones, it does (but don’t tell 5PS I said that).
@CCCer
First, I highly doubt you have no “qualification,” standard, or other measure of discernment by which you attempt to determine the meaning of text.
Second, are you trying to call me a “Hare Krishna”? Or are you asserting that you don’t think that the Bible constitutes sacred texts? Either way, it’s a strange departure from what we’re talking about here.
“Trusting” is not the same thing as “deifying” (not by a very long shot).
To me, the declaration that the Bible is the unqualified Word of God seems tantamount to conflating it with God, and in so doing, conflating the very human errors, intentions, corruptions, interpretations, etc. with God. Please tell me you see the danger in that.
Well, I’m hoping that it doesn’t involve me telling my wife that she sometimes makes mistakes…
Not even I am so foolhardy as to suggest that!,,
@TR,
“First, I highly doubt you have no “qualification,” standard, or other measure of discernment by which you attempt to determine the meaning of text.”
Sorry Tom, I don’t get your drift there. I’m not sure if that sentence came out exactly the way you meant it to (the lack of a “preview before posting” feature on this blog is bit of a pain).
“Second, are you trying to call me a “Hare Krishna”?
No, not at all; no offence intended there.
“To me, the declaration that the Bible is the unqualified Word of God seems tantamount to conflating it with God [...]”
Well it may seem that way to you, but it’s not (otherwise I wouldn’t do it
@Greg,
“Not even I am so foolhardy as to suggest that!”
So there is definitely one truth that we all agree on.
@TR,
P.S.
“Either way, it’s a strange departure from what we’re talking about here.”
Having a conversation is sometimes like driving somewhere on a trip: you see the interesting things when you get off the freeway.
Bones, to me, a person who shows extreme liberal tendencies is a humanist with christian sympathies rather than a disciple, and a person willing to abandon the glory of God because he sees flaws in the creature.
We all have questions, doubts, and the like, but it is through the Spirit we know we have a connection to Christ, which makes it easier to follow the more difficult concepts of Christianity in the Word.
For instance, it is very perplexing, in scientific, natural or human terms, to envisage the concept of a virgin birth, but spiritually it completely makes sense. If I were to take a secular or humanistic approach to the Word on this I would have to, first of all, attempt to rationalise it, then search for precedents, and finally either accept it as truth, despite the difficulties, or discard it as either an allegory I don’t yet grasp, or a myth added by flawed writers.
But, because I am led by the Spirit, I can see, through the Spirit, as I read and meditate on the Word, exactly how this works and the truth of it is made clear to me.
I know that doesn’t help a discussion of this nature, because people are looking for facts which prove either the divinity of the Word, or that scripture is tainted by human involvement.
But I believe that, in spite of the difficulties, especially with the human element, God uses scripture, when led by the Spirit, to demonstrate his divine nature through imperfect earthen vessels.
Notice that he very often operates in the earth through chosen vessels – people, faulty people, the foolish, the base, the weak, the despised and the ignoble. Who but God would consider using the faulty to demonstrate the glory? This way he is glorified.
‘For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellence of the power may be of God and not of us.’ 2 Cor. 4:6-7
Earthen vessels! It occurs to me that when we attempt to dismiss the Word of God because it has the human element in its presentation, we are dismissing his very glory, because it is God’s way to utilise the weak and base to demonstrate his glory, power and greatness.
Conversely, if we attempt to deny the human element to scripture and plead for infallibility of presentation, we are unwittingly missing the opportunity to glorify God for his amazing ability to reveal his matchless and perfect glory through imperfect vessels.
We Christians are all human. That is the point. God created us for fellowship an relationship, but he didn’t say we would turn out perfect. The Word is his covenant with us. It is of him, so it must have an element of divinity, even if it is not God, and t must carry his anointing because it is of God.
There is also a divine resonance of prophecy fulfilled, being fulfilled, and to be fulfilled which is only ever found, for us, in the Logos as presented through imperfect men down through the ages, so we have the Law, the History (which he guided), the Prophets and the Promises, which are of Him, and must have his essence, authority, power and potential.
Being human isn’t a problem. It is the very essential to connection to God.
Having said that, I will apologise to Tom for being too harsh at first glimpse.
Yes, they do. Despite the variety of interpretations that claim to be inerrant.
Yes. I find that attitude extremely annoying and I regard it as dangerous. It is used in some churches as a way of controlling what people think, which should show all of us the danger of that attitude. Eg: condemning people who question doctrines taught on tithing or obedience.
Agreed. Adding this requirement to our faith in Christ Himself as an essential to salvation is like adding to scripture. Some people then fear that means we can throw the Bible out, but that extreme is ridiculous since the fact remains, the Bible is a major place we learn about Christ and God speaks to us through it, without being it.
Yes, because the bible is a collection of inspired letters and stories which shed light on a Person, amongst other things, but the Bible is not a Person. The Person is Jesus and Jesus is not a text. You can have a relationship with a person, but not with a book. Or, if you do think you have a relationship – a friendship – with a book, then there is something seriously missing in that concept of relationship.
This is important because the confusion between Jesus being the Word and the bible being the word, arises often in some churches and is used to make people feel guilty if they don’t do what that church teaches, or even if they question it.
In no way does this undermine the importance of the Bible, but it becomes very dangerous to equate the inspired word with the Person. The bible cannot love, but the Word is Love. A huge distinction.
It is more dangerous to dismiss key elements of the Word as mere myth, allegory or men’s flaws.
Jesus reminds us that, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’
If we ignore such important truths we deny there is any substance to the Word.
When I speak about the Word of God, I am referring, not to every piece of information written in the Bible, although they are important, but to every word uttered by God, whether by his own voice, or by the Spirit, or by the Word, or by men moved to speak by prophecy, exhortation, encouragement, warning, or whatever God used them to speak, write, illustrate or relate.
He even used Archangels to release and empower his Word, such as Gabriel being used to speak the very Word which produced faith in Mary to conceive as the Spirit hovered, or Michael to reveal secrets yet unfolding to Daniel.
As I have said a couple of times the Word of God resonates still with God’s divine purposes and is not to be taken lightly.
‘God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.’ Hebrews 1
He upholds things by the Word of his power. He speaks to us by his Son the Word. He is the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person.
You cannot come to faith without hearing he Word of Christ ‘…having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever, because “All flesh is as grass, And all the glory of man as the flower of the grass. The grass withers, And its flower falls away, But the word of the LORD endures forever.” Now this is the word which by the gospel was preached to you.’
Faith comes by the hearing the Word of Christ, through the preaching of the gospel. But how will you know the gospel without the Apostles’ doctrine?
The Spirit makes the Word alive. He quickens the Word when it is preached, but it must be preached as it is handed down to us through the Apostles and the Prophets of Christ. As he said, ‘The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life’.
The gospel is specific and it is precise. It cannot be messed with, or watered down, or meddled with by science, liberal thought, humanist ideas or secular inclusions.
It is only powerful when, as Paul reminds us, it is the gospel handed down from Christ, and through chosen vessels like Paul who was blessed with the revelation of the mystery of the Church.
The Bible is not God, but the Word is.
The Bible is not God, but the Word is.
Indeed. And the Word is not limited to the Bible. That’s at the heart of what I’m attempting to say above.
TR
There are many problems if you take every part of the Bible literally. There have been many Christians in the past who we would consider downright murderers eg Oliver Cromwell who believed the Bible was to be taken literally.
If Michelle Bachmann wins the next election and she announces that God has told her to send the marines into Iran to kill every man, woman and child, not one is to be left alive, we would be OK with that?
Or would she be seen as dangerous or a lunatic?
She could cite scriptural support for her cause as well and it has been used in the past such as the Christian sack of Jerusalem in 1099 when Christians slaughtered the city’s Jews as just ONE example.
Martin Luther was certainly an antisemite and he could justify his antisemitism with Jesus’s own words. Jesus said of the Jews “You are of your father, the devil”. John 8:44. The influence of this one verse in the history of antisemitism cannot be underestimated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_and_antisemitism
In 1543 Luther published On the Jews and Their Lies in which he says that the Jews are a “base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth.”[13] They are full of the “devil’s feces … which they wallow in like swine.”[14] The synagogue was a “defiled bride, yes, an incorrigible whore and an evil slut …”[15] He argues that their synagogues and schools be set on fire, their prayer books destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes razed, and property and money confiscated. They should be shown no mercy or kindness,[16] afforded no legal protection,[17] and these “poisonous envenomed worms” should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time.[18] He also seems to advocate their murder, writing “[w]e are at fault in not slaying them.”
William Nichols, Professor of Religious Studies, recounts, “At his trial in Nuremberg after the Second World War, Julius Streicher, the notorious Nazi propagandist, editor of the scurrilous antisemitic weekly Der Stürmer, argued that if he should be standing there arraigned on such charges, so should Martin Luther. Reading such passages, it is hard not to agree with him. Luther’s proposals read like a program for the Nazis.” [57] It was Luther’s expression “The Jews are our misfortune” that centuries later would be repeated by Heinrich von Treitschke and appear as motto on the front page of Julius Streicher’s Der Stürmer.
And if you agreed that a president making such a statement is crazy or dangerous, Paul tells us that’s too bad because God put them there.
Romans 13
Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.
@TR,
The Bible is not God, but the Word is.
“Indeed. And the Word is not limited to the Bible. That’s at the heart of what I’m attempting to say above.”
No Tom, what’s at the heart of what you are saying above is the fact that you are casting aspersions on the Bible. In so doing, you are contradicting what is written in scripture, and you are resisting the Holy Spirit (neither of which is a wise thing to do). You couch it all very nicely, but your true spiritual state is all too clearly evident.
Still, it’s best to look on the bright side: you’ll always have plenty of company as you travel on the broad road.
I disagree that I’m “casting aspersions” on the Bible, but believe what you want. You, however, are casting aspersions on my relationship with the Holy Spirit, e.g. God – and you do so without having any kind of relationship with me beyond these few comments. At least my statements about the Bible are informed by my having spent a good deal of time (reading it, studying it, praying, gathering among the Body), all of which I think make me more qualified to offer my views on the Bible than you are to comment on “my true spiritual state.”
Get that log outta your eye, Anonymous Internet Guy, before you want to come at me with your inferences of specks in mine.
@ Tom – it would be a mistake to presume that people blogging here are ill-informed about the bible. And that includes “studying, praying, and gathering among the body”.
Your link came up on this blog through Greg, who, like you, is what I would call a “liberal” in regards to orthodox Christian faith. As much as I like Greg, he seems, at times, determined to push the gay agenda, the emergent agenda, and the “the bible is errant” agenda, so I’m not surprised that Greg has added your article.
Forgive me if I’m wrong but you are aligned with the United Church of Christ” an organisation well known for it’s endorsement of gay marriage and liberal views?
@Tom,
‘I disagree that I’m “casting aspersions” on the Bible, but believe what you want.’
It’s not a matter of believing anything, Tom. You are condemned by the words that you yourself have spoken.
“You, however, are casting aspersions on my relationship with the Holy Spirit, e.g. God – and you do so without having any kind of relationship with me beyond these few comments.”
As I have already said, your spiritual state is clearly apparent. And I’m not casting aspersions on your relationship with the Holy Spirit; I’m pointing out that you don’t have any such relationship.
‘At least my statements about the Bible are informed by my having spent a good deal of time (reading it, studying it, praying, gathering among the Body) [...]”
Heh, heh. Perhaps you’ve not heard of people who are “always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth”. And as Margot said, you should not presume that those who comment here are ignorant regarding the Bible (after all, we’re Australians, not Americans).
‘[...] all of which I think make me more qualified to offer my views on the Bible than you are to comment on “my true spiritual state.”‘
You are sadly mistaken, Tom. You are not qualified to comment on anything pertaining to God, His word, His works, or His kingdom.
“Get that log outta your eye, Anonymous Internet Guy, before you want to come at me with your inferences of specks in mine.”
I’m not anonymous to God, Tom; He chose me before the foundation of the world. And as to specks in your eyes, I wouldn’t know – I can’t tell, because your eyes are tightly shut.
CCCer, if you and Steve are going to cast aspersions on the spiritual state of anyone who dosent agree with you, not only will it earn you no friends and kill off any debate, but it will be an indication that you are not confident of your own position.
If you were confident, you would play the ball instead of the man.
I thought the quote given on the other thread was quite telling – someone said that if you didnt believe in Adam then the whole thing would unravel. It is like you believe you are wearing a sweater with a hole in the back of it. You are desperately begging people not to pull at any loose threads, for fear the whole thing will unravel and you will be left naked.
@ Wazza2 – if you read Tom’s blog posts, it could be taken as represenative of someone who doesn’t affirm traditional (as in what Christ Himself affirms) Christian faith. Just adding “christianeze” to a secular agenda doesn’t make one a Christian.
And doing the research, the United Church of Christ is far from orthodoxy these days
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/05/national/05church.html
The slippery slope is quite obvious, take away inerrancy, add a pinch of emergent, a good dollop of evolution, a cup of welcoming and affirming churches performing gay marriages, a few pastrixs to do the stirring and you have a whole new religion and a false christ.
Let’s just accomodate it all and watch faith of the weaker brother in an omniscient God unravel……….
@Wazza2,
“CCCer, if you and Steve are going to cast aspersions on the spiritual state of anyone who doesn’t agree with you, not only will it earn you no friends and kill off any debate [...]”
If it’s a choice between having friends and being true to the things of God; I’ll take the latter every time. And I don’t believe that it will kill off debate: after all, do the shock jocks on talk-back radio kill off debate?
“[...] but it will be an indication that you are not confident of your own position.”
Nonsense.
“If you were confident, you would play the ball instead of the man.”
If this bloke was anything more than a pompous pretender, he would be worth engaging in a more solicitous and circumspect manner.
“I thought the quote given on the other thread was quite telling – someone said that if you didn’t believe in Adam then the whole thing would unravel.”
Not so much “quite telling” as “quite correct”. I tendered many examples of how this is so, as did others. The questions that were posed regarding this simply could not be satisfactorily answered.
I haven’t found him to be a pompous pretender.
As I illustrated above there is a danger in taking the Bible too literally. It has been said that we don’t need to study the Bible, it speaks for itself. However, Without an understanding of the context of John, you could quite easily develop an antisemitic view of Jews, that they are murderers and work for their father the devil. And the history of Europe certainly shows it. Do a google search of John 8:44 and you can find all sorts of evil.
Without an understanding of Paul’s context in writing Romans 13:1-2, you would have to support the government no matter what it’s policies were. As many did in Nazi Germany or did nothing. Those words are clear. In fact, according to those verses, Bonhoeffer and Christians like Sophie Scholl who resisted the government will be condemned.
Hello Bones,
“I haven’t found him to be a pompous pretender.”
I checked out a video of his, and he’s got about as much anointing and authority as a three week old lettuce. His grandiloquence can’t hide either his utter cluelessness or his spiritual nakedness.
“As I illustrated above there is a danger in taking the Bible too literally.”
The problems arise when it is read sans the illumination provided by the Holy Spirit. A good example would be the Pharisees, who wanted a narrow, strict and legalistic application of all that was found in the law, but who were corrected by Jesus who was at pains to show them that the true spirit and intent of what was written.
The Bible is inerrant, but it must still be correctly handled – and the only means by which this can be done is in accordance with the Spirit’s leading. One can’t just whip a razor-sharp two-edged out of its scabbard and wave it about carelessly – someone will get hurt.
@ Bones @ Tom – the answer for me is holding scripture alone as “authorative for the faith and practice of a Christian”. In other words, sola scriptura which “contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness….”
We can talk about traditions in Christian practice whether they be reformed, pentecostal, charismatic or simply based on theistic evolution but, and it’s a BIG but, those traditions are only as valid as the scripture they are based and have agreement with.
My foundations are only as solid as the inerrant Word I trust in, and I trust those foundations found in His word deeply.
Scripture IS God’s Word, scripture IS God speaking to us , and apart from His glorious display of Himself in creation, we have no other foundation or evidence. We have the Holy Spirit that witnesses to that Truth, we have knowledge of that witness through that Word.
How can we affirm the true work of the Holy Spirit without that Word as written and brought down through history supernaturally and powerfully?
How would we validate the work of the Holy Spirit in one another’s lives if not for His Word telling us how?
The Word itself declares itself to be inerrant, authorative and God-breathed.
It can’t unravel for me, wazza2, because I don’t have a problem with the existing fabric. I believe what the Bible says about Adam’s involvement in the sin problem. It is you who have a problem, and for whom the fabric is tested.
I have already apologised to Tom for being overly harsh, by the way.
http://signposts02.wordpress.com/2011/09/09/the-bible-is-not-god/#comment-22211
You have to understand that by challenging the authenticity of the Word, you take away much of what we stand for. You were bound to elicit a reaction.
I’m done here, y’all. I am not willing to keep bringing an open heart to this table and be condemned by those who don’t know me from Adam. I apologize to those who are offended by what I’ve written above.
May the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, guard your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus,
TR
There goes another new visitor (Tom) to this blog, sent away by the arrogance of those that think they have God all figured out. As a frequent reader and rare commenter on this site for some time, I have spent several years travelling from firm believer to someone close to giving up on Christianity altogether. The reasons for my journey away from Christianity are largely around having lots of questions and getting inadeqate answers. How many of you take your ‘great commission’ seriously? Are your the same in real life as you are behind the safety of your keyboards, in the way you deal with those that hold to different views? Because if you are, it is hard to see how you could convince anyone that the faith to which you subscribe is worth anything.
@TR,
“I am not willing to keep bringing an open heart to this table and be condemned by those who don’t know me from Adam.”
That’s for those who believe that Adam really existed, of course.
Jack, I’m not sure what’s more maddening. Talking to an atheist, an ultra liberal or a fundamentalist. They are all convinced that theirs is the only truth and certainty, despite evidence to the contrary.
Absolutely disgusting behaviour. I hope you will all be happy in heaven arguing about whether you were pre-destined to be there, because I don’t want to be anywhere near you.
@Jack,
“There goes another new visitor (Tom) to this blog, sent away by the arrogance of those that think they have God all figured out.”
Actually, this bloke has been sent away by his *own* arrogance. Arrogant enough to thumb his nose at the living God, arrogant enough to think *he* has all the answers, arrogant enough to impugn the integrity of the inspired and inerrant word of God, arrogant enough to call evil good and good evil, to put darkness for light and light for darkness, to put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.
Of course unless Tom repents, he is going to experience something much worse than being “sent away from this blog”: at the Judgement he will be sent away from the presence of God for all eternity.
Wazza2, that sentiment is very much how I feel. The start of my journey away from Christianity (at least the mainstream, generally fundamentalist version) started by me reading blogs from people I knew, who were so convinced that their version was correct and that those that held different views were going to burn forever. I determined at that time that if these were ‘my’ people, then I didn’t want to be one of them.
Bones, ultimately I am just a guy trying to find the truth, or at least come as close as I can to the truth, because ultimately I don’t think we can have complete certainty about anything. If Christianity is true, then I want to try and know that it is. If it isn’t true, then so be it. I think one truth I can be certain about it that none of us knows for sure.
@ Jack – What you read from me is what you’ll get from me, with kindness, respect and a brilliant cup of coffee.
There’s not one person here who can bring you to faith, that’s the work of the Holy Spirit.
Are we here to bring shallow insincere words of affirmation to visitors, particularly ones who have their own blogs, blogs that certainly leave you scratching your head about what they consider is representative of Christ – gay marriage, pro-choice and not accepting that Christ is the ONLY answer, being just some of it.
And we’re not Christ-like or fulfilling the Great Commission? Tom didn’t like his liberal views questioned or held up to the piercing light of Gods Word, and couldn’t offer a sound defence, so he took his ball and went home.
if that’s the sort of “fellowship” one wants, his blog is quite accessible.
CCCer, it’s so easy to invoke the fires of hell for those that dare to question fundamentalism. I don’t know either of you, and have only your words on this blog to form an opinion of you. However from that, it is quite easy to determine that hell alongside the likes of Tom would be far preferable than heaven alongside the likes of you.
@ Jack – if the Great Commission is “to go into all the world and make disciples, baptising in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and teaching them to obey everything I commanded you…”, how do we reconcile that command with a bible that’s apparently deemed errant by Bones, Greg and Wazza?
And why should we if that’s the case?
Everyone is entitled to have their views heard and evaluated for what they are. Margot, why didnt you engage with the content of the article – the arguments presented – instead of going to the authors blog and googling his credentials?
You immediately moved it to the personal, and so did CCCer and to a lesser extent Steve.
@ Jack – what is fundamentalism to you?
My view of fundamentalism is the traditional 5 tenets of faith, basically in it’s simplest form….
1. The inerrancy of the Bible
2. The virgin birth and deity of Christ
3. Substitutionary atonement
4. The bodily resurrection of Christ
5. The second coming of Christ
Blog here long enough, and you eventually find the above list seemingly irrelevant.
@ wazza2 – using that logic of not checking the source, we could end up having engaging with Fred or Shirley Phelps!
And I did engage in the article, you just didn’t agree (and that doesn’t bother me), a lot of this was covered on the other post.
It really ticks you guys off, that some of us dare hold to inerrancy, doesn’t it. It’s not blind faith, it’s a faith given as a gift to believe….
Nope it’s blind faith.
@ wazza2 – Just for the record, I’m one of those people who would put a block on my children’s computer, to protect them from predators, rather than let them “engage in the content/argument” if I wasn’t around to check on the sites……..
In the same way, I check links of sites I’m visiting, just to see what I’m exposing myself to……it’s called wisdom.
Jack,
The fires of hell are not for those who oppose fundamentalism; they are for those who refuse to humble themselves and put their faith in Christ.
No one on this blog is “right”, any more than any man who ever lived is right, save one: Jesus Christ, who is the Son of God and God come in the flesh. If we will bow the knee to Him, then we are justified and saved, but, if not, we remain in our sins and will perish. That’s the Gospel, and it comes from God. If you don’t want to accept God’s gracious offer of salvation from sin and his gift of everlasting life, then you don’t have to.
Tom has made a decision to continue in his rebellion against God, and yet claims that he is a disciple of Christ, and, moreover, he purports to be a minister of the Gospel. He is nothing more than a bare-faced liar whose conscience has been seared with a hot iron, and unless he repents he will most certainly face the eternal consequences.
It’s Tom who has set his face against the Lord, not me. It’s Tom who has made the conscious decision to approve of others who do likewise, not me. Love rejoices with the truth, so if the fact that I have pointed these things out is a stumbling block to you, then perhaps your heart is not inclined towards God.
@ Bones – bait taken. Blind faith? No – a position of faith and trust based on the knowledge of God (revealed in His inerrant Word), based on His character and nature ( revealed in His inerrant Word).
With the understanding “that without faith, it’s impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists and He rewards those who earnestly seek Him”. (Also written to us in His inerrant Word).
Margot, for me fundamentalism probably does start with the idea of the inerrancy of the bible, which you and CCCer obviously agree with. Which might be fine for you, but for those of us who see what we consider to be fairly obvious discrepancies, contradictions and errors, this becomes a problem. Is it that unreasonable for people to ask questions and attempt to continue in the faith despite these problems?
CCCer, my heart is inclined to truth, and it is the search for truth that I am on. To follow my earlier comment, based upon the persona that you display online, heaven alongside the likes of you seems like it would be hell.
I apologise to anyone I have offended with the strength of my argument here. It was not meant to offend, but to describe my opinion.
Blogs are about opinion. They are sometimes passionate and often we say things which would be better left alone, but there should be no doubt, for those who come here regularly, what this blog is about. It has toned down considerably from what it was, but it does allow for different ideas and opinions.
I was once at the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem, where there is a synagogue at one end, and witnessed a fierce argument and heated dispute by a group of rabbis, which spilled out into the courtyard, and almost came to blows.
Scripture has been discussed passionately for centuries. Even Apostles had fallings out over doctrine. We all just want to get it right, that’s the truth of it.
Why shouldn’t we be passionate about the Word of God. I think it demonstrates, from all sides, the truth that the Bible is totally emotive and makes the quietest of contributors into a zealot at times.
I think God may deliberately leave a few issues to our imagination, precisely to cause us to be passionate about what we believe.
Faith is like that. People die for their faith. People are willing to give everything for their faith, leave everything behind and press on into the relative unknown, on the basis of what they read in the Word, and at the same time face criticism for their dedication and sacrifice. Why wouldn’t we be passionate?
Jesus said, about the dispassionate, “I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth.”
What we must avoid, though is creating schisms. We can disagree about facts, but we need to be one under Christ as people who love other people, as brethren.
I find the idea of dismissing the Bible as mere human scribblings to be offensive, and I feel I have the approval of God to speak my mind on it, but not to hate anyone in the process, or belittle them in anyway, or to engender strife, or to get involved in foolish disputes over genealogies and the like. But bI am authorised to give a reason for my hope, and to give an apologetic where I think error is spoken.
I believe all scripture has the seal of God upon it, even if some parts are signed off by men of God. They sign as Ambassadors with the full delegated authority of God.
Tom’s definition of the Bible as ‘a quantifiable, human-made compilation of some really awesome/terrifying/boring stories written by humans about God’ is quite provocative, though, for those who have given everything to serve the God of the Word, even if he didn’t turn out to mean it in quite the way it is written.
This idea of the Bible’s purpose diminishes what God says through his servants to mere human ideas, and not the actual Word of God.
Some clearly share this view and have spoken out. Others agree with what Tom said and have defended his position, which is fine, but no one should be offended because we have a difference of opinion.
There has to be a place where grown ups can talk grown up talk and not be faced down by critics for their passion.
Margot, ‘It’s not blind faith, it’s a faith given as a gift to believe’
Bones, ‘Nope it’s blind faith.’
Two interesting concepts. Neither quite right, Biblically.
The thing about faith is that it comes by hearing, but hearing what? The Word of Christ, precisely, the ‘rhema’, or ‘Living Word’ of Christ.
It is not the same as the gift of faith, which is a manifestation of the Spirit given as he wills for specific projects.
Faith, for anything in the kingdom, including salvation, comes by hearing the Word. The just shall live by faith.
Faith is not actually blind, although we could ‘flying’ blind. It’s rather like the instrument rated pilot’s need to be able to fly through a storm without being able to see exactly where he is going, using his instruments alone.
It is an easy thing, for a pilot, to fly on a clear day when everything is seen. On fact we don’t really need faith for the seen. What we need faith for is the unseen.
But faith in itself is not blind. It is based on the Word of Christ. We see what he sees and we are directed accordingly.
So the Word of God our instrument panel, by which we ‘fly’ into the unknown by faith in what the Word of God says.
____________________________
Jack,
‘…for those of us who see what we consider to be fairly obvious discrepancies, contradictions and errors, this becomes a problem. Is it that unreasonable for people to ask questions and attempt to continue in the faith despite these problems?’
Those ‘obvious discrepancies, contradictions and errors’ are actually quite rare and easily understood when you realise that men wrote by the infinite inspiration of God, but according to their own finite observations.
I have already explained at length that this is a powerful testimony of the grace of God, in that he uses flawed vessels to reveal his perfect glory. In this way he is glorified and men are not. That is a brilliant move by God, and puts everything into perspective…
‘But I believe that, in spite of the difficulties, especially with the human element, God uses scripture, when led by the Spirit, to demonstrate his divine nature through imperfect earthen vessels.
Notice that he very often operates in the earth through chosen vessels – people, faulty people, the foolish, the base, the weak, the despised and the ignoble. Who but God would consider using the faulty to demonstrate the glory? This way he is glorified.
‘For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellence of the power may be of God and not of us.’ 2 Cor. 4:6-7
Earthen vessels! It occurs to me that when we attempt to dismiss the Word of God because it has the human element in its presentation, we are dismissing his very glory, because it is God’s way to utilise the weak and base to demonstrate his glory, power and greatness.
Conversely, if we attempt to deny the human element to scripture and plead for infallibility of presentation, we are unwittingly missing the opportunity to glorify God for his amazing ability to reveal his matchless and perfect glory through imperfect vessels.’
Another thing: If you were to paint a smooth wall until it was perfectly white, and then someone splashed it, only minutely, with a few droplets of coffee, what would you see?
The majority of the wall would still be pure white and pristine, but those tiny drops which stained it would leap out at you, and take your attention away from the purity of the rest.
That is how some people view the Word of God.
It is the perfect wall of eternal purity with a high dimension of power and grace, but it has some little drops of men’s reason which have splashed it, and, if we’re not careful, will pull our attention away from the glory and power of the perfect.
@ Jack, you say ” but for those of us who see what we consider to be fairly obvious discrepancies, contradictions and errors, this becomes a problem. Is it that unreasonable for people to ask questions and attempt to continue in the faith despite these problems?”
There has been a lot studied research into the bible translations. What is important is the accuracy of those ancient texts’ translations and if you watched James White’s lecture (put up on an ealier post) on the discrepancies (minor), you can certainly see that what we have now is trustworthy.
I’m not suggesting ANYONE use the Message Bible for their bible study, but the ESV, the NASB, are very good translations. If Bones and Wazza dispute that, well I guess they’re keeping their knowledge of ancient languages to themselves and not revealing it to us plebs, because they would hate to admit it’s accuracy?
Bones talks of “blind faith” inrefernce to those of us who believe the bible inerrant, BUT, in denying that inerrancy, what have they left for themselves if they are as they, followers and believers in Christ.
Even that belief is at odds with the plain clear text, but, still trusting their “blind faith” in evolution and their denial of biblical inerrancy, they judge and find us wanting for having a “faith in the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen”.
Can you continue in the faith despite “these problems”? The problem is not with the text, the problem is with our sin nature, and my/your desire to rule and reign over our own lives rather than Christ.
@ Jack – if you have the time or inclination, have a listen to this….
“A Survey Of Heresies”
http://gracelifepulpit.com/Sermons.aspx?code=PJ-CDA04
And it’s true when the bibles says there’s nothing new under the sun, the same heresies were infiltrating the early church.
From Spurgeon.org …..
Galatians 1:8 “Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed”
“The church was troubled by heretics from the beginning. Before the end of the apostolic era, false teachers were already introducing novel ideas that ate like gangrene at the life of the church. Paul warned Timothy about “Hymenaeus and Philetus; who concerning the truth have erred,” overthrowing the fragile faith of early Christians by teaching them that the resurrection of believers was already a past event.
Gnosticism bred heresy in the second-century church, fed by men like Marcion. In the centuries that followed, some of the most notorious heretics were often eminent teachers, such as Arius and Origen.
These early heresies are instructive even today, because they planted the seeds of many false teachings that still endure. The student of church history who has an understanding of these early heresies is better equipped to recognize modern deviations from the truth. Modern apostasy usually mirrors some error from the past.”
Margot “I’m not suggesting ANYONE use the Message Bible for their bible study, but the ESV, the NASB, are very good translations. If Bones and Wazza dispute that, well I guess they’re keeping their knowledge of ancient languages to themselves and not revealing it to us plebs, because they would hate to admit it’s accuracy?”
I’ve never disputed that.
@ Bones – your belief (or lack thereof) that there’s no literal Adam or Eve, (a flood?, Noah?), fascinates me. Though Jesus Himself acknowledges their legitimacy, you set yourself above the Word revealed in human flesh?
Jesus is a liar? By your own admission, you set limitations on His abilities, yet the (inerrant) Word clearly shows and demonstrates His power and authority thoughout His time on earth.
Timothy (and we, by application) are meant to “do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth”.
The “word of truth”? Surley not, it’s errant! So let’s just ignore the whole lot, because He lied about the first 5 books.
Margot – “Bones talks of “blind faith” inrefernce to those of us who believe the bible inerrant, BUT, in denying that inerrancy, what have they left for themselves if they are as they, followers and believers in Christ.
Even that belief is at odds with the plain clear text, but, still trusting their “blind faith” in evolution and their denial of biblical inerrancy, they judge and find us wanting for having a “faith in the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen”.”
I haven’t denied biblical inerrancy. More your understanding of what that term means. New and Old Testament scholars have long come to the conclusion that many books of the Bible were edited over long periods of time. Books like the Pentateuch where it says of Moses that he died and no one knew where his grave was implied that he had been dead for ages. Then you have the two creation accounts of Genesis. Using completely different styles and language. Isaiah is another example. Matthew and Luke relied on Mark and another source. That’s obvious. That might cause a crisis of faith for some but most of modern Christianity says “yes we know that but it is still the Word of God” and have moved on. That is what they call form criticism.
You say I just rely on science. No, I rely on scripture, tradition and reason. They all have to line up as it were, that way I know it is of the Spirit. If they don’t line up, I am very wary as to whether it is of God. Why reason? Because God gave me a brain and intelligence to use, not throw away when I read the Bible.
What I’m saying of your definition of inerrancy is that it denies scriptural scholarship and reason especially in interpreting Genesis 1 and 2.
I looked at Tom’s ‘plenty’ of contradictions list, and found many to be quite preposterous, strained, contrived, and easily explained. In the end, if I could be bothered to deal with it, the list, borrowed from some blog or other, would be shaved down to a small handful of differences, and few of any real consequence to our walk.
He also says the Bible is in a state of ‘flux’. What on earth does he mean by this? The Bible is constantly changing?
In fact, it declares itself to be established.
What ebbs and flows is our life. The Word is the constant which anchors our soul.
I disagree with CCCer’s harsh view of Tom. I think he’s well-meaning, a devout Christian even, but there’s something amiss with his portrayal of the Word. I agree the Bible is not God, but Tom is saying something other than this, I believe, and it is not good. Just can’t quite put my finger on it!
@ Bones – what about your view of Christ as a somewhat illiterate/unaware Jew limited in knowledge to His time/space? That is not in the text….
Seriously, any deep enough study/research helps clarify all the issues about Moses’ death, the two accounts etc.
And you have denied a literal Noah as well, yet we are given geneologies back to Adam.
Bones, where in the bible does it say WE get to pick and choose the “bits” WE can believe in and toss the rest out?
Where is your hope if it’s errant, where is your assurance if it can’t be trusted from Genesis to Revelation?
@ Steve – bottom line, Tom is asking the question “Did God really say?”
And we know where we’ve read that and whose mouth it came out of…….
@ Jack – you are not alone, you’re in good company.
From Tim Challies today……
.”Yesterday I came across a quote by Richard Ganz that really jumped out to me. He is dealing with the frustration we often feel when we read the gospels. We read of Jesus’ disciples and see how time after time they just completely failed to understand who Jesus was and what he was up to. Ganz offers a biblical perspective:
‘We look back at the disciples, and we wonder, “What in the world was wrong with them? How could they not get it?” The reality is quite the opposite. We should ask instead, “How could they get it?” It is impossible. It is beyond comprehension. The Old Covenant sacrifices, as powerful a pointer as they were, had a limited purpose. Their purpose was simply to show us how even the most rational and beautiful picture of grace—a blood sacrifice for sin—falls flat in front of what Jesus actually did.
Jesus trained men who, because of their background, should have been ready for the great blood sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. They weren’t. They were still utterly incapable of “getting it” just from the facts. This is understandable. The ultimate fact is that it is absolutely impossible to come to an understanding of God’s grace just from an assessment of the facts.
There is nothing in human experience alone that can awaken a person to the full reality of God’s grace. What Jesus did for us, the grace that His life and death is for us, is eternally impossible to fully comprehend. The fact that people like us will live with God FOREVER is purely His gracious gift to us. Sadly, even though we know so much about grace, we continue to make obeying rules the high watermark of our lives, rather than grace.’
The disciples did not catch on because they could not catch on. Even for these men, who walked and talked with Jesus, it took a supernatural awakening for them to see who Jesus was and to turn to him as Lord. In that way, their path was not a whole lot different from our own.”
Text taken from here……
http://www.challies.com/quotes/how-could-they-get-it
That’s right Margot we do know whose mouth it came out of…a talking snakes! But of course we should believe the snake spoke…Harry Potter style and Adam and Eve had the gift of parseltongue. Good grief. Show me any where that the snake was Satan in animal form…you can’t. The myth that the snake was Satan has been read into it and isn’t actually in the text. You astound me at times…part biblical scholar part children’s story believer.
@Greg,
You either haven’t been reading your Bible, or you are not trusting it. Check out the story of Balaam’s ass. If an ass can speak, there is absolutely no reason why a snake cannot.
The Bible has complete integrity for those who believe it, and who read it according to the illumination provided by the Holy Spirit.
Margot, you said – “Can you continue in the faith despite “these problems”? The problem is not with the text, the problem is with our sin nature, and my/your desire to rule and reign over our own lives rather than Christ.”
In my opinion that is a cop out type of answer when people (such as myself) are questioning scripture. You suggest an alterior motive to the questions, denigrating the person asking. Perhaps people like me have a genuine desire to find out the truth, and questioning what we consider to be problems with scripture is part of that search? Your dismissal of that with accusations that we only question because we want to sin is not helpful.
CCCer, you said – “The Bible has complete integrity for those who believe it, and who read it according to the illumination provided by the Holy Spirit.”
On what basis do you believe you have this ‘illumination’? How can anyone else know that your ‘illumination’ provides you with greater insight into scripture than others?
@ Jack – What were my “accusations”? Truly, in everything I have to put myself in first place as sinner, that why I included myself in that response.
Where was I “denigrating”? The only place I can go, to reveal my heart’s motives (and sorry, yours too) is the Bible.
We can know, as Christians, we have the Holy Spirit (and not something else) because it lines up with the Word. We haven’t anywhere else to go for that clarification, good or bad….if my heart is deceitfully wicked above all else.
We’re righteous because of Christ, revealed only in His word but we sin daily and we sin much that’s why I can say “simul iustus et peccator” at the same time righteous and a sinner.
If you feel I’m being accusatory and I don’t believe I am bvecause of my own sinfulness, perhaps it’s simply the working of the Holy Spirit in your own life, drawing you to Him.
And “He will lose none that the Father has given Him.”
CCCer…you actually proved my point!
Hi all,
I know I said I was done here. But I do actually appreciate the fruitfulness of some of this discussion. And frankly, it’s a lot easier for a pastor to blog with a clear head once Sunday morning has come and gone. I felt the need to unsubscribe yesterday because I wanted to put my spiritual, emotional, and physical resources into completing the preparation for the two worship services for which I had leadership responsibilities this morning. Those of you who lead worship will likely know what I mean.
Steve, you seem well-meaning, and I appreciate your capacity for nuance, even as we are almost certainly in some significant disagreement when it comes to biblical interpretation. If this is the best forum in which to continue genuine correspondence with you, I’m game, although frankly, that would be more palatable if everyone here were as clear-eyed as you appear to be.
Margot, it’s hard to see the line for where your assurance ends and your arrogance begins, though I suspect we’d find some common ground if we looked deep enough.
Steve and Margot, a question I have for you is: in your view, is there an understanding or belief about the Bible that one must have in order to be saved? If so, what is that, and why? And if not, then what are the stakes of our argument here?
CCCer, based on your comments here, you need to get a hold of your ego. Seriously. If this is a normal mode of engagement for you, trust me when I tell you: you are doing more harm than good. You are not the Lord’s gatekeeper, thanks be to God. In my line of work I meet people on at least a weekly basis who have left the church because of the raw arrogance and Puritanical approach of “believers” like you. You should take responsibility for the debilitating effects of your behavior and stop it immediately, here and anywhere else you’re acting like this. You’re in my prayers. Pray for me too, sister/brother.
jack, Greg, bones, wazza2 – thank you for having my back! Means a lot, especially as this is not ‘home territory’ for me. You are raising really provocative points too. Thank you.
Peace, y’all,
TR
@ Tom – says “my arrogance” and yet here am I acknowledging my own sinfulness and daily need of a Saviour.
I guess it’s my “arrogant” assumption that God’s Word is inerrant, infallible and the only source of Truth. I certainly will own that.
Tom, you “arrogantly” presume to speak for Christ by affirming gay marriage, pro-choice etc etc.
That is not the Christ of the bible – that is a god of your own making. That is not an “arrogant” statement, it’s the commonly held view of orthodox, biblical Christianity. Your love for gay affirmation is leading people to a false gospel, false conversion and ultimately spiritual death. The onus as a pastor is on you, the price to pay for false teaching is heavy as we are told in Hebrews 13:17 “….of those who will have to give an account (of their ministry)”
Do with it what you will, but as a wise ex-pastor/rancher told me today, “some pastors are just RANCHERS with a HERD, some are SHEPHERDS with a FLOCK”, and at least he is honest enough to admit his failure as a shepherd and get out of the ministry.
One other thing, you will that most Australians aren’t as politically -correct about contraversial issues as you gentlemen in the States, where “gay is the new black”….
@ Tom – as a matter of full disclosure, I have two gay nephews, one a committed atheist, the other now a Christian, who has walked away from that lifestyle, trusting Christ in his DAILY walk because it’s his struggle.
We have a dear friend whose partner died of Aids, but providentially, he was not infected, came to Christ and is happily married with 3 children.
We have another friend who is HIV, married, left the marriage, went into the gay lifestyle, became infected, left the lifestyle, re-married a beautiful young woman, sadly also HIV through drug use, and it’s their DAILY walk with Christ that sees them through…..
Not speaking for them, but they are the first to admit it’s their sin-nature that drove them not just inclination/circumstances.
@ Greg – is there any part of the bible would you accept as inerrant ?
Where do you go when you die ?
Is Jesus coming back, ever ?
@ Tom – asks the question “is there an understanding or belief about the Bible that one must have in order to be saved? The semantics game.
We bring nothing to the table except our sin, we (the elect) are chosen in Him before the foundation of the world. His decision, not ours, not mine…..and it is a mystery.
Romans 10:9 “…..because if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved”
Add to that….
Romans 10:17 “Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God”
Add to that…..
Romans 15:4 ” …for whatever things were written before, were written for our learning, that we through the patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope”
The entirety of 1 John is given to us to determine the “reality of our salvation”….
1 John 1-4 “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life—2 the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us—3 that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. 4 And we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete”
Doesn’t work if it’s not inerrant…….
@Margot, you seem to be overly preoccupied with gay people, given that sexual orientation is all but absent from the scriptures (and is entirely absent according to Jesus). What gives? You appear to think that by bringing up the United Church of Christ’s stance on gay marriage, you are somehow discrediting me, as if the more appropriate Christian stance is the bigotry of yesteryear. Guess we’ll have to disagree on that one.
But since you brought it up, your experience of gay people who have successfully undergone reparative therapy is by far the exception rather than the rule. There is literally no reputable medical or psychological organization that recommends reparative therapy, at least not in America. Again, just for the sake of clarity: there is not one. This is significant. I do know somebody – exactly one person – who went through one such program and claimed success at becoming straight. I know someone else who, despite nine months of such “treatment,” came out of it and tried to kill himself. Thank God he didn’t; today he’s alive, well, Christian, and yes, still gay.
But more to the central question, I know a plethora of devout Christians who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered. Who in the world am I to deny what God has done, if God so chooses to pour out the embodied Holy Spirit upon a good and holy person who lives an ethical, righteous, Christian life, and who is gay? Haven’t you ever read Acts 10?
If it is true that God has created people in diversity of sexual orientation, then it is nothing less than a denial of God’s own, good, creation for us to declare that LGBT people cannot live godly lives. I take my call as a pastor very seriously. And that is why I absolutely will not deny what God has done. At the end of the day, I trust the embodied Holy Spirit that has been revealed in my presence, and I trust this living manifestation of God more than I trust an obsolete interpretation of what the (what, 7?) scriptures say regarding sexual orientation.
@Margot – you’re quoting a bunch of scripture, and calling my very sincere question a “semantics game.” I’m wanting to get clear on whether you believe there is a “Bible litmus test” for salvation, because to my reading, even the Bible itself does not claim this.
@ Tom – let’s let God to be your judge, I’m not going into battle over clearly stated scriptures that you think can be twisted to make those dear LGBT folks feel secure in their sin. Any more than I would condone friends committing adultery “because they love each other”.
If they truly are redeemed, He will not leave them comfortable in their sin (just as He graciously does with us), and He will draw them to Him and away from your deceptive teaching.
“If they truly are redeemed, He will not leave them comfortable in their sin (just as He graciously does with us), and He will draw them to Him and away from your deceptive teaching.”
So isn’t that God’s job then. To convict people of their sin.
All false teachers use the bible as either “the bible plus” or “the bible minus” and we have a good example of that in Tom’s take on what is acceptable in God’s eyes.
Tom is no different from the peddlers of false doctrine Paul warns of in Romans16:17-20.
He clearly and simply is encouraging others to live in a way that offends the righteousness of God.
@Margot – “let’s let God to be your judge” – oh, so now God finally gets the keys instead of you all?? It’s about time; I’ve been waiting for that since this post went up!
I want to suggest to you that, contrary to what you may believe, there is not only one correct interpretation of the scriptures. Human interpretation is necessarily limited in that it is the product of humans! This is true whether it is an “orthodox” view or otherwise. That’s why when it comes to discerning the will of God, biblical interpretation alone is not sufficient: we also must look to the Living Word, the embodied presence of the Holy Spirit to guide us.
@ Bones – yes.
He clearly and simply is encouraging others to live in a way that offends the righteousness of God.
@Margot – careful, you appear to be conflating the will of God with your understanding of what scripture says and means. Don’t make an idol out of the Bible! (And we’re back to the main post.)
@ Tom – I don’t know you or how well-informed you are theologically. I don’t know if you are a seminary graduate with a degree in ancient biblical languages.
However I do know people with those credentials and they would “blow you out of the water”, so to speak.
Those same men do have a high view of scripture as theologians and they do believe it is inerrant.
And I do fear for you, but that’s because I am fundamentally, a fundamentalist.
@Tom – my former “practicing” male gay friends, now married, had no reparative therapy. They had a true conversion experience, recognised and repented of their former lifestyle and got on with life, that’s it.
And personally, doing just a little research over the years, there are a lot more men and women happily set free, than the gay community are willing to admit..
@Margot…snap!
@ Greg – is there any part of the bible would you accept as inerrant ?
Margot – either the bible is inerrant or it isn’t – you can;t be a bit pregnant can you. So no, I do not consider the bible inerrant. Do I think that the bible contains all that is necessary for salvation – yes.
Do I think that the bible portrays an accurate account of the life of Jesus and his teachings..yes.
Do I think Paul teaches an accurate understanding of the teachings of Jesus? mostly…but some is quite obviously his own thinking.
Where do you go when you die ?
First off a coffin…after that either the crematorium or the cemetery.
Where do we go? There is good argument to suggest that we ‘sleep’ and at some future time go to be with Jesus. There is also good argument to suggest that we go immediately to be with Jesus. I also think that there is good argument to suggest that whatever Heaven is it certainly isn;t some ethereal plane where we all play harps and sing Charles Wesley hymns eternally…I believe that the earth will be renewed, and I believe that it will be this earth and not a new different earth…but I could be wrong.
Is Jesus coming back, ever ?
Most lkely – I certainly hope so…just so I can dob on you for being a Sydney Anglican and a calvanist
@ Tom – if you were just out there in the blogosphere, having an opinion, would I be less concerned for you? No!
But the fact you say you’re a pastor and the more you reveal of your views, makes me start to care more for the people you “minister” to.
Because, by biblical standards, and sadly I have to say it – you are a wolf in sheeps clothing.
Margot, not all theologians believe in the inerrancy of scripture. I am indeed a seminary graduate, a trained theologian, although I did not specialize in biblical Hebrew or Greek. Some of my professors, on the other hand, are lifelong Hebrew and Greek scholars, among other theological disciplines. I imagine they could likewise “blow you out of the water,” so to speak. Or maybe it’s not really about blowing anybody out of any water; it’s just about a different theological orientation.
At the heart of the matter, this is not a debate that can be resolved with facts. This is about belief, and what follows from that belief. If your theology depends upon the notion of biblical inerrancy, then there are certain implications which follow from that. If instead, your theology is constructed upon something else (and mine definitely is), there are certain implications which follow from that. And in the meantime, there are lots of arguments to be had.
As it is, I am not so concerned about your soul. As long as you keep your heart earnestly opened to God, you’ll be fine. But I am very worried about the souls of all those whom you and so many others needlessly condemn to a life of torment – hell on earth if not the afterlife – because you are unable to accept what God has made new in your midst. I am very concerned about the false teaching that declares one cannot be gay and Christian. That viewpoint actively harms people in real and palpable ways.
Goodnight to you,
TR
@ Greg – I prefered the “evil Sydney Anglican”.
@ Tom – so let’s blame God for their life choice? He gave them life and as long as they draw breath they will have an opportunity to repent (Calvinist interruption – if they are the elect
).
Margot – there has been 2000 years of argument over what being a Christian has to look like; started with the disciples and probably won’t end with us. It does you no credit to be calling people wolves in sheep’s clothing – most importantly because that is most definitley not what Tom is, but also because you have no way of knowing what is in Toms heart from just his blog and his encounters with us here.
Tom has come here offering grace and openness and has received vile abuse and name calling in return. He has been attacked personally when what we are here to do is discuss the issues – not the person. I expect more from you. Had 5PS been here I would have expected nothing less than poisonous vitriol – but you are a person who knows how to treat others with grace and respect.
Different understandings and beliefs about what the bible does and does not teach do not make people mortal enemies – we are all on this journey together – not on our own.
I posted a comment in the heat of the moment last night when Tom left and CCCer was attacking..it went into moderation, which was a god thing as it allowed me time to think about what i was saying. That comment will never see the light of day. Sometimes I think it wold be better for us all if we had a moderation button on all our thoughts and comments and words.
along with this cartoon the naked pastor went on to say:
I agree with him.
Can we be that sort of community here? Is that possible?
Let’s be strong in our positions, open to change and the possibility that we’re wrong (although I know I’m not I am open to the possibility that you are). What do you reckon?
This naked pastor guy is good – very very good.http://www.nakedpastor.com/
Hello Jack,
“On what basis do you believe you have this ‘illumination’?”
There are two ways:
Firstly, on the basis of the promise made by Jesus: “But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.” John 16:30
Secondly, on the basis of experience that represents the fulfilment of the promise quoted above. Those who love God and who yield their lives to Him find that the Spirit reveals truths from the scriptures, even the deeper things of God. This is an important part of being led by the Holy Spirit, and is the antithesis of those who rely solely on their feelings, which can lead to deception. As it is written “For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.” Romans 8:14
So here we see the word and the Spirit working together as they should. You cannot separate them, or there will be trouble: if there is only the Spirit there will be libertinism, if there is only the word legalism will take hold. Either of these is ruinous. Note that the latter is that to which people are referring when they talk negatively of “fundamentalism” – they are referring to people who hold to the truth of the scriptures, but do not yield to the leading of the Holy Spirit, or display evidence of His work in their lives. Such people typically display Pharisaical attitudes and behaviour.
“How can anyone else know that your ‘illumination’ provides you with greater insight into scripture than others?”
I don’t claim deeper insight than anyone else; the same insight is freely available to all by virtue of revelation from the Holy Spirit. However, some people do not have a heart for the things of God, and would rather wade in the spiritual shallows, as it were. Some claim salvation who are not saved, and, claiming to be able to see, nonetheless remain blind and dead in their sins.
By the way, anyone who does make an explicit claim to deeper insight is one of whom you should be wary: they are moving in pride, and are ripe for being deceived. Deeper insight is not something to be spoken of, it is something to be displayed by upright conduct and Godly character. Anyone who is truly close to God is characterised by humility, as Paul said: “If anyone imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to”.
I hope that’s helpful, and that it clarifies matters for you.
@ Greg – calling Tom a wolf in sheeps clothing is not “poisonous vitriol”. By his own words the bible judges him as that and the fleece definately fits. He’s a big boy, he can fight his own battles here. I hope 5PS does respond to him…..
It’s a high calling to pastor, and carries much more judgement on the man and it doesn’t hurt for all us to be reminded of that. As you know, my son is a pastor and I would have no hesitation saying the same to him and so would my husband. I cannot, in all good faith, take back that view of Tom – read between the lines Greg, he is leading others astray even though perhaps you don’t agree.
You will never find me politically-correct when it comes to what the bible actually says. I am not in any way emergent, emerging or blogger-sensitive.
Why is it that the gay-affirming/pro-choice/liberal/bible-denying group have to always hold the high moral ground.
So just man up guys but treat me with respect simply because I’m probably the oldest blogger here!
So we come to Naked Pastor, yes at times his cartoons touch a nerve but he “drifteth” far too far to the left-wing/liberal for right-wing/conservative me.
Greg, it would help if the arrows pointed neither left nor right, but up!
__________________________
I think, Margot, that the gay question, important though it is, should be left for another post. There are a couple out there. This one is on the claim that the Bible is not God.
1. Do you agree that the Bible is not God? If not, why?
2. I think this is different question to whether the Word of God is inerrant. But how do you define the Word of God?
3. The other question is whether all of scripture, that is, every word that is written in the Bible, could be said to be inerrant.
__________________________
Greg, you are doing a great job of putting up various viewpoints, but they are, of course, from your perspective. Can you or Bull set me up to author posts? Maybe a little variety would help, without interfering with your own perspectives being posted or wanting you to stop.
@ Steve – it was your good self who pointed the many problems with Tom’s blog. This blog drifts, it’s part of it’s “charm”.
I wonder how much Greg researched Tom’s blog before he posted the original article. Greg’s general perspective would resonate with Tom by the way, and I’m not being rude to Greg (he’s my friend:))
Personally I love you to post some articles, this blog is moving a little to the left/emergent.
And, Margot, if you want to encourage pastors and leaders to have their say here, you, 5PS, and wazza and others need to allow them to have a point of view and perspective which is their own and not judge them more harshly for being in the ministry.
I know you’ll fight me on this, but I find some of the vitriol aimed at pastors, simply for being pastors with a different perspective to your own, extremely offensive and unnecessary.
And the whole seminary education and qualifications issue is such an arrogant put down. Who gives a rip who knows what? Some seminaries are notoriously filled with error, or teach so many points of view that no one could know where they came from or where they are going, let alone lead a church!
Paul abandoned his own impressive qualifications for the higher calling in Christ. Knowledge puffs up. The Spirit looks up!
Whilst sound theology is important, and good doctrine is encouraged, its the grace to lead that is paramount, not the education.
Personally I found the following interesteing.
A pastor who is pro-gay and questioning of scripture is attacked and villified. (And I am not pro-choice)
Someone posts in another thread views which are clearly antisemitic and racist and I believe are downright dangerous and the silence by some was deafening. Well he did believe scripture was inerrant. (Kudos to Steve on that one)
Seems we choose which sins we’re going to get offended by.
@ Steve – pick your battles wisely, I am not the enemy. Tom has an agenda that you would not endorse as a pastor. Clearly I said I did not know what his qualifications to pastor are. He offered that information, in response. His views clearly disqualify him biblically.
Why do you seem to prefer to have a go at me? Time and again comments have come up, from Bones, Wazza and Greg, that you could have had a field day with. But rather than address them biblically as you are quite capable of doing, you aim your guns at me.
Time and again I’ve waited for you to respond and have actually been quite disappointed that you didn’t, it’s not the time zone difference, it’s rather been a habit of “snark at the Calvinist”.
Sad, because lately we have so much to contend for because we actually agree, again pick your battles wisely, you can do better.
@ Bones – wasn’t it an almost unspoken decision to ignore Chirpy’s antisemitism? To not enter into the obviously offensive discussion?
My comments fully support you, Margot.
I am not having a go at you or anyone in particular, just making a request which will help pastors feel more confident to contribute. I have defended the right of a person to an opinion without being judged for their position.
It’s the opinion, as wazza points out, that should be assessed and not the person, which was an extraordinarily accurate suggestion from someone who pursued me on a personal basis for a couple of years. I guess we all change!
In fact, I included wazza and 5PS in that last comment, and should add CCCer, so how do you surmise I was confronting you alone?
I have also made my views known in regard to the post here, so I don’t need to repeat it more than a couple of times, and mostly I confirm the fundamentalist position, although, perhaps, not as vehemently as you or CCCer.
Steve, I think you might want to reconsider your use of the word fundamentalist. What you and most others think of that term are different. I know it refers to the basics (the fundamentals) of the Christian faith. It now has the connotations of being ignorant, intolerant and dangerous as in Muslim fundamentalists or Westboro Baptist.
I do not consider you a fundamentalist as implied above.
@ Steve – I guess I should ask you to define fundamentalism!
I wonder how much in agreement we would find ourselves? I’m thinking the differences will be all secondary…..
Margot is right: Tom is a wolf; there is no question of this whatsoever.
Tom, you have two choices: either you humble yourself and repent, or you are going to suffer the eternal consequences. You think this is just an “opinion” or a “personal interpretation”, but it is not: it is the truth.
The glory of man is fleeting, and before you know it you will be standing before God to give account. If at that time you are not righteous by virtue of having been born again, then you will be banished from the presence of God and sent into a place of everlasting punishment. And, as Margot has pointed out, since you have presumed to call yourself a pastor, your punishment will be all the more severe on account of those you have led astray.
You can repent any time between now and the moment that you die, but if you don’t I wouldn’t be in your shoes for all the tea in China on the day that you front God. As it is written in God’s inerrant word: “It is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”
Yes, Bones, you have a point in regard to the term ‘fundamentalist’. I am also a very gay person on occasion, but not ‘gay’ as in it’s latest manifestation, although I hear that it’s now considered ‘gay’ to be ‘gay’ by some! I am not really wicked either, but that could be either a good thing or a bad thing depending on the company I keep!
I find using the word ‘fundamentalist’ more convenient in conversations than saying I adhere to a form of Protestant Christianity that upholds belief in the strict and literal interpretation of the Bible, including its narratives, doctrines, prophecies, and moral laws.
If someone could come up with another word for us we would be grateful!
_________________________
CCCer, have you ever considered joining the Potter’s House? You’d fit in well!
Literalist.
And fundamentalist is used to put others down as a pejorative term. I was accused of being a fundamentalist because I believe Jesus physically rose from the dead as the Gospel writers attest.
Margot – wasn’t it an almost unspoken decision to ignore Chirpy’s antisemitism? To not enter into the obviously offensive discussion?
Ok thanks for clearing that up. Sorry if I misrepresented you.
@Steve,
“I am not having a go at you or anyone in particular, just making a request which will help pastors feel more confident to contribute.”
Fair dinkum Steve! We’re all adults here, not a bunch of schoolgirls. There’s plenty of of push and shove here, and, if one doesn’t like it, they can push and shove right back. Christians should be tough, not a bunch of whiny wimps – and pastors should be the toughest of the tough! The supposed need to cater for the sensitivity of some poor shrinking violet of a pastor so they can be more “confident” and so we don’t hurt their feelings is symptomatic of much of what’s wrong with the Church today.
Where is the passion for God and for His pure unvarnished truth? Where is the Holy fire that burns from the strong presence of God’s Spirit? Where is the zeal that should consume those of us who contend for the faith once delivered to all the saints? God forbid that days of persecution should come to this country – how many will stand in those days?
@Steve,
“CCCer, have you ever considered joining the Potter’s House? You’d fit in well!”
No I haven’t; they’re a pack of lily-livered, mealy-mouthed hand-wringing backsliders (and those are their good points).
@Bones,
“And fundamentalist is used to put others down as a pejorative term.”
Support your local asylum: fund a mental
@Bones,
Re. antisemitism, I also thought it wise to keep quiet (just for a change).
I did, however, point out in two successive posts that holocaust denial / minimisation is in “a class of its own” as to being reprehensible and completely beyond the pale.
@Steve,
P.S. Is being considered prime Potter’s House material a step up from having “Doris Day” theology, or a step down?
You opened yourself up there, CCCer, but I’ll resist!
So you think it’s OK to publicly slander someone for being a pastor based on a few blog comments, and your own opinion?
It’s not about being ‘adults’ as in ‘let’s biff each other around on purpose’, as if we’re in the old style AGM where anything goes and usually it’s the pastor out on his ear or telling the truth, nor is it about pastors being particularly sensitive!
It’s about common curtesy and respect.
Of course, if you think respect is only for wimps then we’ll have to take that into account when you comment.
What I am saying is that you, wazza, 5PS and Margot tend to up the ante when you sniff ‘pastor’!
@ CCCer
Yes you did. You legend you.
Doris Day just made a come-back and hit the UK album charts at number 9 as an 87 year old!
I remembered I have lots of friends who are really good Potter’s House people, CCCer. On second thoughts, you’re probably a bit too religious, confrontational and abrasive for them.
@ Steve – does being an ex-pastor qualify one to comment on pastoring? Back in the old days (80′s and 90′s) most of the leaders were ordained lay pastors (both my husband and I took on the role very seriously).
Just curious, reading Potters House statement of faith, is it just me or does it read like it’s oneness pentecostal?
No one said anything about commenting on pastoring, Margot.
But judging a person differently because of their vocation, unless they declare they are specifically commenting from that position, seems overbearing.
It’s a perception I have, and a suggestion I thought would be helpful to encourage improved discussion, since Greg seemed to be going in that direction.
Who wants to come on here and face a lambasting simply for being called to the ministry, whether Pentecostal, emergent or liberal? Because they would, and they do!
@Steve,
“Doris Day just made a come-back and hit the UK album charts at number 9 as an 87 year old!”
Amazing!
“I remembered I have lots of friends who are really good Potter’s House people, CCCer. On second thoughts, you’re probably a bit too religious, confrontational and abrasive for them.”
Oh. I should have quit while I wasn’t so far behind and refrained from asking the question…
It reads…..
“The one true God has revealed Himself as the eternally self-existent, self-revealed “I am” and has further revealed Himself as embodying the principles of relationship and association i.e. As Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (Deuteronomy 6:4, Mark 12:29, Isaiah 43:10,11, Matthew 28:19, Galatians 3:20)
@Steve,
“Who wants to come on here and face a lambasting simply for being called to the ministry, whether Pentecostal, emergent or liberal?”
I would argue that one cannot be “called” to an emergent or liberal ministry. “Emergent ministry” and “liberal ministry” are both oxymorons.
@ Steve – I should have said “does being an ex-pastor qualify one to comment on pastors?
Tell me about it, CCCer! No-one likes to be publicly crunched!
I think accusations and offences should be dealt with between the persons involved, and not in the public domain.
Some things we can say, specifically on doctrine.
Others are best left alone, until we know the personality of the person addressed. I’m as guilty as anyone of this. Cut’n'thrust is OK, as is sledging, but needs to be carefully worked out and not overdone.
I actually thought my first comment here was addressing Greg, who I already know can take it and dish it out, so it’s in fun as much as serious. Had I known it was Tom I would have been more courteous in my approach. Which is why I apologised.
@ CCCer
“I would argue that one cannot be “called” to an emergent or liberal ministry. “Emergent ministry” and “liberal ministry” are both oxymorons.”
How do we define liberal and emergent, boys and girls? Are orthodox and fundamentalist the same terms?
Some would see me as liberal while others would see me as fundamentalist.
I feel so unloved.
@ Bones – you can be “Master Po” and the rest of us can try out for the role of “grasshopper”….
@Steve,
“Of course, if you think respect is only for wimps then we’ll have to take that into account when you comment.”
Greg referred to me as being a moron on another thread, and to be truthful that sort of thing doesn’t bother me at all – sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.
In any case, it is instructive to note that there were times when Jesus Himself was neither courteous nor respectful. Context, context, context!
Ah so, Hear this pearl of wisdom
Man who put head on railroad track get splitting headache.
@Steve,
“[Things other than doctrine] are best left alone, until we know the personality of the person addressed. [...] Cut’n’thrust is OK, as is sledging, but needs to be carefully worked out and not overdone.”
I’ll ease up and give that some consideration.
@Bones,
“I feel so unloved.”
We’re still mates, Bones.
@Margot,
‘[...] the rest of us can try out for the role of “grasshopper”….’
But I think Steve reckons I might be a locust.
Low cost, maybe! Just kidding!
I’d have to ask the same question as Bones. What defines a liberal or an emergent leader? There are moderates and extremes to everything.
I think there are extremes to both Pentecostalism and Reformed Theology which are no better than some forms of liberalism and the emergent theologies.
I think we need to come back to the doctrine of Christ!
Steve only Bull can set you up as a poster buy until he does you can email me your articles and I will out them up for you. I will email you so you have my email ti send stuff to.
Ive been thinking just having my views published lately was getting monotonous.
Not monotonous, Greg. Plenty of comment happening. Sometimes issues come up which promote their own post. I’ll look at that prospect.
@Bones,
Pearls of wisdom:
Man who desires to have nurse for wife must be patient.
I think God should not be accused of authorship or inspiration of the Bible. I’d go further and suggest that it is blasphemous to make such an assertion.
Hi David,
You made it here, mate.
Still stoking the fires, I see.
Fasten your seatbelts everybody, David’s here!
Tom, are you around? Fasten your seatbelt too. Meet David, one of our more handsome “eloquent” Aussie gentlemen?
Lol
I’m glad you’re here David: your contribution will make me look meek, mild and the epitome of tolerance.
Release the hound!
Tom,
‘The Bible was written by faithful Israelites and Christians, many of whom we would consider to be divinely inspired. It is our heritage, and there is much to be learned from our ancestors.’
The Apostle Peter:
‘…we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. For He received from God the Father honour and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.’
‘And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.’
We wouldn’t just ‘consider’ them to be divinely inspired. We are told that they were.
They spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
They were considered holy men of God.
They were appointed to speak forth the oracles of God. Some of them had to suffer terrible degradation because of the call of God on their lives. Many of them were eventually martyred for their faith and commitment.
‘And what more shall I say? For the time would fail me to tell of Gideon and Barak and Samson and Jephthah, also of David and Samuel and the prophets: who through faith subdued kingdoms, worked righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, became valiant in battle, turned to flight the armies of the aliens.’
‘Women received their dead raised to life again. And others were tortured, not accepting deliverance, that they might obtain a better resurrection.’
‘Still others had trial of mockings and scourgings, yes, and of chains and imprisonment. They were stoned, they were sawn in two, were tempted, were slain with the sword. They wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, tormented– of whom the world was not worthy.’
‘They wandered in deserts and mountains, in dens and caves of the earth. And all these, having obtained a good testimony through faith, did not receive the promise, God having provided something better for us, that they should not be made perfect apart from us.’
‘Therefore we also, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which so easily ensnares us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.’
How easy it is to insult these men and women of God whose faith and commitment helped bring us the Word and obeyed the Spirit of God. We should, like the writer of Hebrews, applaud and honour these great saints for their dedication and selfless application of God’s will.
@Steve,
“Tom,
‘The Bible was written by faithful Israelites and Christians, many of whom we would consider to be divinely inspired. It is our heritage, and there is much to be learned from our ancestors.’”
As you correctly point out, this bloke spouts mealy-mouthed nonsense. He is no more a minister of the Gospel than he is a Christian; he is a ravening wolf. Moreover he is not only dead in his sins but wilfully blind, and besides all this, he commends blindness and death to those who will listen.
It is not discourteous to state the above – it is the plain truth, and the truth spoken in love – love for God, love for the Gospel, and most especially love for the unsaved. No one who cares about the eternal souls of men could fail to be concerned at the sort of nonsense that this man purveys.
In one of his posts, Tom contended that I am “not the Lord’s gatekeeper”. This is another lie – all true Christians are gatekeepers and watchmen for the Lord, and we all have a duty of care to warn of the enemy’s approach and of the wolf’s presence in our midst. If we do not discharge our duty in this regard, the blood of those who perish as a result will be on our heads.
From Ezekiel 3:
“17 “Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the people of Israel; so hear the word I speak and give them warning from me. 18 When I say to a wicked person, ‘You will surely die,’ and you do not warn them or speak out to dissuade them from their evil ways in order to save their life, that wicked person will die for their sin, and I will hold you accountable for their blood. 19 But if you do warn the wicked person and they do not turn from their wickedness or from their evil ways, they will die for their sin; but you will have saved yourself.
20 “Again, when a righteous person turns from their righteousness and does evil, and I put a stumbling block before them, they will die. Since you did not warn them, they will die for their sin. The righteous things that person did will not be remembered, and I will hold you accountable for their blood. 21 But if you do warn the righteous person not to sin and they do not sin, they will surely live because they took warning, and you will have saved yourself.”
Those of us who are saved are prophets, priests and kings. We have the authority and the right to speak out in the strongest possible terms against false teachers, and in fact we have a clear obligation to do so. To entertain their views or to offer them any succour or encouragement by any means whatsoever is to participate with them in their rebellion and sin.
Heh Heh… great impression of a bigoted right-wing christian. Oh.. wait.. you werent serious were you?
That Ezekiel 3 quote was specifically to one person – to whit … Ezekiel. There is no blanket justification from God for all Christians to be jerks and tell others about their perceived “sin” or false-teaching.
Just because you believe something to be the truth dosent mean you are not being discourteous.
I think CCCer’s accusations could be more effectively addressed to Tom directly, specially as the avenue is available to CCCer at Tom’s blog, although Tom has commented here, so he is able to defend his position if he cares to.
Naming a minister a wolf is a big call. You need to be very sure of your ground. I’m not sure a few blog entries gives enough information to make the call, and it is surely better to discuss the issue with the person to clarify their intentions before making the call.
My concern would be the following from Tom on his information page:
‘I would say that just because I speak in absolutist terms regarding Christianity does not mean that I believe it should be everybody’s path. As I mentioned earlier, I believe we are all on unique paths.’
If this is the basis of his own faith, then it is little wonder he appears to diminish the weight of scripture in his writing. He is, in essence, saying the ‘holy’ writings of other ‘faiths’ have as much relevance as the Bible. So a Muslim can follow the koran and be as righteous in God’s sight as a Christian, Hindu, or a Buddhist following their ‘holy’ books. After all, they are all on a unique path.
A path to where, though?
My guess is that this is why a couple of commenters here have claimed that Tom is indicating the broad way as the Way, which places him in an awkward position if he is also going to claim that he is a Christian minister.
On the other hand Tom says he may speak in ‘absolutist terms’, so is this saying he is going to discuss the hard issues of Christian discipline as his own opinion?
Hello Wazza,
The Ezekiel 3 quote was indeed to one person – a person who was called as a prophet. However, as you may be aware, and as I pointed out in my post, those of us who are true Christians have been given a universal office as both priests and prophets.
Consider 1 Peter 2:9:
“But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.”
Perhaps you’ve not been reading your Bible, or maybe you are not trusting what is written there, but it is clear that Christians have the authority to speak on God’s behalf under the unction of the Holy Spirit and in a manner that is consistent with what is revealed in Scriptures.
And there is no doubt that Tom is a false teacher: he clearly falls short when measured against the truths of God’s inerrant word. So his neither his sin nor his false teaching is “perceived”; they are both realities, and just because you can’t see that doesn’t make it any less true.
Perhaps you haven’t read what Paul wrote about false teachers. He was not mistaken, nor was he being discourteous, nor was he being a “jerk”. He was standing firm for God’s truth.
And perhaps you haven’t read what Jesus said to the Pharisees: he called them “blind guides” and “whitewashed tombs”, and he warned them that their punishment would be most severe. He was not voicing an opinion, nor was he being discourteous, nor was he being a jerk: he was speaking the very words of God.
I am baffled as to why this should be so difficult to comprehend, and I am surprised by the fact that you take umbrage. What authority do you rest on to intimate that I am a “right-wing bigot”? Was that a revelation from the Holy Spirit, or is it according to something that is written in the Bible?
Its actually according to something that is written in Wikipedia – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigot
“A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs. ”
Would you say that you are tolerant to those of differing beliefs, or that you have no animosity to them?
Let’s have another look at this, though. Are your words ‘you’? Is your life ‘you’?
If someone is specifically called and adequately equipped by you to represent your words and life, including character, attributes and future intentions to all succeeding generations, is that record ‘you’?
Obviously it is not all of you or everything you will say or do, but it could be said to be representative of who you are and what you intend to the degree of being of you.
This is especially true if you are able to ratify it, as God has done, by a personal oath, by blood, and by the Spirit.
Given that God has declared he is not a man that he should lie, and that he is God, does this lend extra credence to the notion that the Bible does portray God in a personal way?
Hello Wazza,
Let’s break this down a little:
“A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices [...]”
As I have said, we are not dealing with opinions – we are dealing with God’s word. So a Christian should be devoted to God’s word, and, if we are, we will that it is a lamp unto our feet and a light unto our path – and we will find ourselves in agreement with God, which is a good thing. So there is absolutely nothing wrong with being devoted to the Bible, or obstinate regarding the truths therein.
Jesus said ““I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” That is unambiguous and uncompromising. It is confronting. Do you consider Jesus to be a bigot?
“[...] especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.
Would you say that you are tolerant to those of differing beliefs, or that you have no animosity to them?”
I do not show intolerance for those of differing beliefs, nor do I have animosity towards them, because every person has their free will and is entitled to think as they please. If their beliefs are misplaced, it is not for me to judge – they will answer to God alone.
The ones I will not tolerate, and for whom I do have animosity, are those who claim to have the *same* beliefs as me, but who do not. These people are liars and deceivers, and since they claim to be a part of God’s Church they place themselves squarely within the sphere wherein Christians are called to judge.
That is to say, Christians are called to show discernment regarding those who claim to be ministers of the Gospel. We are enjoined to study God’s word, and to learn to discriminate between sound doctrine and heresy, between genuine ministers and impostors: in fact, we are clearly warned that there *will* be impostors. And when we spot heresy or when we see an impostor, we are quite within our rights to point this out, as we see that Paul did when necessary.
God has spoken to me very clearly at times about tolerance for those outside the Church. His advice has been “love your enemies”, “pray for those who would wish you harm”, “humble yourself and serve all men, even those who are against you – especially them, because that’s when it matters the most”. None of this is easy, and often it is quite hard. But it is what the Spirit says, and it is consistent with what the Bible says, and there is no doubt that it is of the utmost importance. If I were left to my own sinful devices, I have little doubt that I *would* be a bigot (and worse), but God will not leave me to my own devices: just as for all those who truly belong to Him, His kindness leads me towards repentance.
It’s interesting concerning ‘discernment’, that there is no New testament reference to it, and only two in Proverbs.
The NT references I find are to ‘discern’ and ‘discerning’, which are as follows:
Mt 16:3* “and in the morning, ‘It will be foul weather today, for the sky is red and threatening.’ Hypocrites! You know how to discern the face of the sky, but you cannot discern the signs of the times.
Lu 12:56* “Hypocrites! You can discern the face of the sky and of the earth, but how is it you do not discern this time?
Which refer to signs of the times.
1Co 11:29* For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.
Which refers to the Lord’s Body.
1Co 12:10* to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another different kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues.
Which refers to the manifestation of discerning of spirits, and is always according to the leading of the Holy Spirit, since it is his manifestation, as he wills, using whomsoever he choses, not some singled out ‘discernment ministry’, and is always in reference to the operation of spirits, either evil or holy, and how they are to be dealt with through the leading of the Spirit.
Php 1:9* And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in knowledge and all discernment,
10* that you may approve the things that are excellent, that you may be sincere and without offense till the day of Christ,
11* being filled with the fruits of righteousness which are by Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God.
Which refers to our love abounding in knowledge and discernment, to approve what is excellent, to be sincere and without offence!
Heb 5:14* But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
Which refers to what is right or wrong, what is good or evil, and is in no way a reference to a single ministry, especially not ‘discernment ministry’, but to those who have been believers long enough to step up to the level of becoming teachers.
So I don’t see where anyone is called to ‘discernment’ in regards to publicly pointing out the perceived errors of leaders, at least, not in the sense of those who claim to be leaders themselves in discernment ministry, reference to which I can find nowhere.
I say leaders in discernment ministry, because they all seem to be lone rangers with a cause and well prepared to call out other people without declaring their own submission to any other authority, although they do, invariably, claim Christ as their only authority.
I think we’re called to test every spirit whether it be of God, and we are authorised to determine whether doctrine is accurate to the Word, and we are allowed to know person by their fruit, but I can’t find a single reference to discernment ‘ministry’.
In fact, we are told we do not wrestle with flesh and blood, but with principalities and powers of darkness.
I mean, CCCer, what authority are you under, for instance? I was under the impression that you were attending a well known Pentecostal church under sufferance, and had no respect whatsoever for either the leadership or the doctrine of that church.
How does that credential you for criticism of any other church member?
This is a response to some earlier comments by Steve…sorry for not staying up to date. Some of us work for a living.
Steve, your point is taken. But to me, it’s more complicated than just a simple, “they said it, so it’s so.” For one thing, none of the scripture throughout any of the New Testament – not the gospels, not anything written by Paul, Peter, nor the author of Hebrews – was understood or intended to be equivalent to the Tanakh. The stuff the NT writers refer to when they talk about scripture all predates their own writings. The decisions to canonize the NT writings were made by people (probably almost exclusively men).
Humans have agendas. Those who penned the original words had agendas. Those who have interpreted the words since have had agendas. When we interpret the words now, our interpretations mix with whatever cultural, educational, social, political, and religious biases we hold, to name a few. There is no “objective” scriptural interpretation. Or if there is, no subjective human being can hope to attain it. This means, that our interpretations of scripture are our own – and we do well to accept that reality, and take full responsibility for it, rather than dodge that responsibility by embracing someone else’s interpretation of scripture whole hog, just because it came earlier or is proclaimed louder.
Am I advocating that everyone just come up with their own thing? No. There are, of course, things that should influence our interpretations. Here are a few of the things that influence my interpretation of scripture: Prayer. Scholarship. Religious tradition. Experience of the Holy Spirit. Commentaries emerging from a variety of Christian contexts. The experience of human suffering. I endeavor to remain grounded in the practices of my Christian faith, and to the community which holds me accountable: my colleagues, my parishioners, my family, the prophets whom God raises up to confront me when I get too big for my britches. (Aside to CCCer: you’re not a prophet. You’re just a clanging cymbal with a computer.)
So we can argue about which theological and scriptural interpretations and paradigms are better, but let’s not pretend that there is only one unified tradition and deviations from that. My beliefs and understandings are constantly evolving as prayer, or scholarship, or tradition, or the experience of suffering, leads me into deeper insights. But there are a few lines that will be difficult for me to cross. At this point, I am completely unwilling to accept any interpretation that leads to the abuse and suffering of people I love, people who have embodied the grace, peace, and love of Christ in my life.
As just one example, when someone declares that women cannot be pastors because 2 Timothy says so, if I take that at face value, I must reject what I have personally experienced as the powerful manifestation of God’s Word and God’s healing, as given through women pastors in my life. So when this person’s interpretation goes against my embodied experience of God, and that of my people, I am disinclined to take it very seriously. Especially when we consider that 2 Timothy was not penned by God, but written by human beings with agendas, human beings who, for some reason, falsely attributed their work to Paul, or else it was falsely attributed to Paul somewhere else down the line. This of course doesn’t mean it’s incapable of revealing the Word of God, but it does suggest to me that it is not The Word of God verbatim, and so requires some interpretation. And so when people today choose to interpret 2 Timothy as if it were the Word of God verbatim, I get curious about the biases and interests that are informing their interpretive choices. Clearly, they have something to gain with that interpretation. But is it the Word of God? Not to me, not if it denies what God has revealed.
I think one of the reasons it’s threatening to acknowledge that God did not author the Bible is because that puts the onus of the work of interpretation squarely on us. No longer can we merely accept what we understand the Bible is saying as God’s Word verbatim. We need to do the work of critical discernment, interpreting through many different lenses, from our own personal experience with God to our communal experience, to recorded experience of God throughout history. It’s hard work. But God does not withhold the Holy Spirit from us as we do this, and there is no reason to check our God-given brains or our values at the door. I’m grateful every day that God continues to speak through the Living Word – through my community, through the Holy Ghost, through my Bible.
Darn. 1 Timothy 2 is the text I meant to reference above. Sorry for my confusion.
Regarding the question about whether I believe in many paths, or just one path…
I am a Christian. I believe that encountering God through Jesus Christ is my way to personal salvation, and our way collectively to communal salvation.
Having said that, unlike many of my Christian brethren, I do not believe that for me to be a Christian requires that I take a hostile or exclusivist posture in relation to people of other faiths. I am not inclined toward other faith positions. But neither do I believe that God is incapable of manifesting Godself in such a way that surpasses my own understanding, or even within a different faith perspective.
For centuries, Christians have taken an adversarial posture toward those with different beliefs. Some continue to do so today, although thankfully, it is no longer commonplace for Christians to kill those who are not believers (at least, not in most parts of the world). I do not feel called to re-fight the Crusades. I am called to serve God and my neighbor, within a Christian community, and with a welcoming and loving external posture, not an exclusive and condemning external posture.
P.S. That’s all I’d like to say about this here. On this thread I would prefer to limit the scope of the discussion to that which follows directly out of the central questions about the Bible raised in the post above. If you want to visit my blog and raise questions about the posts over there, I’m happy to address them there. Thanks.
Steve if there was a way in which I could give you and online standing ovation I would do it…in the mean time this will have to do.
,img src=”http://www.visualphotos.com/photo/2×4063208/boy_giving_standing_ovation_ist16013.jpg”/>
let’s try that again:
Nice posts, Tom.
I’d take issue with your analysis of 1 Timothy 2 as I think form criticism has very little value to most Christians. I mean Luke and Matthew probably cheated with Mark and used other sources but so what? I read them for how the authors (or editors) intended them to be read. It’s fine for study but I prefer to read the text as a whole and not as something cut and pasted. That’s not to say I disagree with you re women leaders.
When it comes to reading the Bible, it certainly helps to understand why the authors wrote what they did and did they mean for that understanding to be adopted across the whole of the Christian church. Or were they writing to specific cultural practices and events. How else can I understand Mark 7:24-30 where Jesus refers to a Canaanite woman as a “dog”?
The early Christians clearly had a different understanding of scripture as many of the OT Messianic passages used in the New Testament clearly pointed to some other figure in the Old Testament. The New Testament authors weren’t interested in literalism nor even biblical context. What mattered was to show how Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament scriptures.
That’s a good point re: form criticism. My issue with 1 Tim 2 really isn’t that it was misattributed (hell, we’d have to toss out half the TNK by that standard!). I guess the main point is, I think the ‘imperfect’ or ‘inaccurate’ pieces just reinforce for me that the formulation and interpretation of the Bible is a decidedly human endeavor, for all the good, bad, and ugly that necessarily entails.
Your point about early Christians not being concerned with literalism or biblical context is important as well. Interestingly, a rabbi once told me that in the context of Jewish treatment of text at the time, for figures like Paul and the gospel writers to make interpretive leaps and insert Jesus where he wasn’t necessarily before was actually within the norms of Jewish hermeneutics at the time. Go figure.
Gudday Steve,
“I mean, CCCer, what authority are you under, for instance?”
The *very same* authority that Jesus was under when he was challenged by the Pharisees with “By what authority do you do these things?”.
The Pharisees had a sweet little set up, and things were going quite nicely, thank you very much: they set themselves up as being arbiters of spiritual authority, they accepted praise from men, they compared themselves to each other, and they were *very big* on the outward appearances of piety and spirituality (does any of that sound vaguely familiar?)
They had an altogether cosy religious gig going – until Jesus came along and rocked their boat.
Reconsider 1 Peter 2:9:
“But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.”
So I am:
a) Chosen.
b) Royalty.
c) A Priest.
d) Holy.
e) God’s Special Possession.
f) Called to declare His praises.
g) Called into His wonderful light.
I am also a child of Abraham by virtue of my faith, an adopted son of God, and a joint heir with Jesus Christ.
How much more authority do you think I need, exactly?
How does that credential you for criticism of any other church member?
English, Steve, English! Credential is a noun, not a verb; please don’t bait me into switching to pedant mode – we’ll end up derailing the thread
@Tom,
“(Aside to CCCer: you’re not a prophet. You’re just a clanging cymbal with a computer.)”
You wouldn’t know Tom, you are not in a position to be able to judge. First, you need to place your faith in Jesus Christ in order to be born again and forgiven of your sins. When you’ve done that, you can ask God, and he will fill you in on whatever you need to know about me.
Or you can wait until the day of judgement, if you prefer. It is your prerogative to wait until then, but it is not recommended, because things will go very rapidly downhill for you after that point.
Steve,
P.S.
“How does that credential you for criticism of any other church member?”
Tom is not a Church member, he would need to be saved to be that.
@CCCer, you are in error. I know where I stand with God. The main thing I need to be saved from right now is your self-righteous bullsh!t.
The ugliness of your hostility is matched only by the foul taste of your self-aggrandizement. It is astounding to me that you believe you are serving God, much less your neighbor, with your behavior. All you’re serving is your own selfishness.
These last few days I’ve felt alternately offended, angry, and wounded by your words. But now I just feel saddened for whatever circumstances have led you to this mode of engaging with others.
If you haven’t done so already, please pray on this. You can think I’m a “ravenous wolf” all you want. But surely I can’t infect your prayers with my heretical ways, now, can I? Please go to God on this and ask for guidance with an open heart.
In peace,
TR
CCCer
You might find the Pharisees were also:
biblical fundamentalists
considered chosen
godly
holy
good
scripture memorising
evangelistic
many were martyred
Jesus didn’t attack them over doctrine but over justice. Jesus attacked them because they lacked mercy, love and faith see Matthew 23:23, Luke 11:42 – quoting, in Matthew, Micah 6:8.
Actually matters of doctrine were especially important to the Pharisees and upset them. Such as Jesus’s reference to the temple, forgiving sins, healing on the Sabbath, tolerance of Samaritans and women and sinners.
Who would Jesus upset today?
Careful, Bones, you start drawing parallels between the content of who Jesus was and what he stood for then verses what’s going on now, and you get into all kinds of trouble, with the powerful church elites and the Puritans alike. One of my college professors liked to say that If Jesus came back, he’d be killed again, on the first day – by the Christians. Atheist though he was, I’m pretty sure he’s onto something there.
I have no doubt that your atheist professor would be right. Look at church history. Not really a lot of justice, love and mercy going on there. Pretty much the opposite, lamentably.
I need to ask myself, when Jesus was talking to the Pharisees (about their heart), was he also talking to me?
Tom,
“Please go to God on this and ask for guidance with an open heart.”
OK, I’ll ask Him, see what transpires, and let you know.
Who would Jesus upset today? The same people that claim to speak for God – people like Tom who encourage men and women to exchange the Truth for a lie, people who would claim that His main attribute is love, when it’s His holiness.
When I read Proverbs 14:12 “There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death” – I think of Tom who sadly, with his own version of smug “righteousness”, would deny the scriptures but claim it’s promises.
@Bones,
“Jesus attacked [the Pharisees] because they lacked mercy, love and faith see Matthew 23:23, Luke 11:42 – quoting, in Matthew, Micah 6:8.
[...]
“Who would Jesus upset today?”
Those who espouse religion but who have love for neither God nor man. The obdurately stiff-necked and hard-hearted, those who resist and grieve the Holy Spirit, arrogant men who would usurp God’s place and who are wilfully blind and ignorant.
So, exactly the same sort of people as in those days. Some things remain always constant.
CCCer, I agree with you completely.
@Margot, I don’t disagree with you about Jesus’ main attribute. I just think the litmus test ultimately comes down to the individual and God, not the individual and the Bible.
Also, for the record, both you and CCCer’s condemnation of me is pretty ungodly if you’re wrong about my standing with God. Ask yourself if you can really know the things you allege, and whether it is truly a Christian prerogative to make the accusations you make from afar. Think and pray on it, friend.
Tom, Tanks for the response. You said:
‘For one thing, none of the scripture throughout any of the New Testament – not the gospels, not anything written by Paul, Peter, nor the author of Hebrews – was understood or intended to be equivalent to the Tanakh.’
Paul would disagree with you wholeheartedly, since he declares he was given revelation of the mysteries of the Gentiles and of the Church, which no one understood from the OT.
Yes they referred to the OT, but it was the Apostles who developed the doctrine of the NT, which was and is foundational fro Christian belief, not Jewish belief.
There is much scripture on this, and I don’t want to overfill this comment, but Ephesians gives us a clue:
‘For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you Gentiles– if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you, how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets…’
And prior to this he tells us the foundations are built on Christ through the Apostles and Prophets.
‘Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, in whom the whole building, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.’
This talking about the coming together of those near – the circumcision, or Jews, and those afar, the uncircumcision, or Gentiles, which could only ever refer to the NT, and the way it has eventuated, the mystery being revealed, which was not known to the OT writers or Prophets, nor, even the angels knew the plan of God.
So the NT, particularly through the Word of Christ, and the revelation given to Paul is crucial to our understanding of the Covenants, the Church, the Mystery revealed, the Spirit with, in and upon, the ministry of the gospel, the life and conduct of the believer, The gifts, manifestations and fruit of the Spirit, the commands of Love which supersede the Law, the great commission, The Promises of God, the doctrines of faith ver law, the conduct of believers, the order of the Church, the ideals of marriage, etc, etc, etc.
…oh, and did I mention grace?
@ Tom – you seem rather Catholic in your approach to scripture. I use a capitol “C”, because perusing your blog ( and you do have a rather extensive “portfolio” on the gay issue) you act rather “priest-like” in your blessing of their unions.
It’s on this issue alone I feel we are justified in calling you to repentance – if you are ministering to a gay Christian struggling with homosexual desires and temptations, then that person is not a “gay Christian”, he or she is simply a struggling Christian, tempted to sin as we all are.
If how ever you are encouraging them to celebrate their homosexuality as if it’s a gift from God, then you are not only a wolf, but a deceiver, a liar, and an unrepentant man leading them in a pharisaical manner as described in Matt15:14 “Let them alone; they are blind guides. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.”
funny how both sides of an argument can see the other in terms of blind leading the blind margot…perhaps Tom has more gong for him than you give him credit for and yet you and CCCer are quite happy to condem him and say he isn’t even a Christian…I hardley ever see much of what i’d call a Christian response to people you disagree with from you or CCCer or the late great 5PS (where is he I wonder – promised us a great deal of rebuke and correction…until i showed him where I had answered his question and refuted his greek…bye bye 5PS, hope he comes back). But what I do see is judgment, hatred, condemnation, bigotry and self righteousness. not very good qualities really.
CCCer, since you’re claiming Christlikeness in the mode of attack you are advocating and utilising, I can only comment that I’m very glad Jesus didn’t treat me the way you are treating others before I came to faith.
The Christians he sent to my wife and I to witness were far more loving and respectful of our lack of understanding of truth than you are showing yourself to be.
I think Tom is far more developed in his faith for Christ than you realise, but, however, if he’ll excuse me this indulgence, and I consider you correct in your assessment that he is not born again, and in need of the Saviour, but what rights, or by what authority do you treat any man in the way you are? I have to tell you it is not love, and y are guilty of judging a man who attempting to express his understanding and position.
You either need anger management or a course in witnessing.
Since you are a Biblical literalist, it would be good for you to check out scripture which indicates that disciples should all be under the leadership of Elders, Pastors or Overseers. You could start with Hebrews 13:17, and begin a journey of cross-referencing (is that a verb?), which will assist you greatly.
Apart from that, I’ll resist your folly in likening me to a Pharisee, and let that go through to the Keeper.
Being Christlike isn’t merely attempting to treat people aggressively like some big baseball bat, the way you wrongly perceive he treated Pharisees. You completely miss the point of his mission if you intend to continue in this vein.
@ Steve – if, as Tom claims, his GLBT flock are “desirous” of a true relationship with Christ, He will lead them away from Tom.
Tom is lying to them, that’s the simple truth. One only has to read his blog to see that.
At the same time, in His lovingkindness, is He drawing Tom into a right relationship as well ? I would pray that Tom is one of His and repents of his false teaching. Let’s not forget he represents himself as a “reverend”…..
What’s even sadder is the fact that a lot of gay men are dying of Aids, and if Tom ministering these falsehoods to them, there will be a price to pay. Scripture is also quite clear about false teachers.
So would Paul have spoken to Tom the way you and CCCer have, or would he have set up opportunities to persuade him of the truth?
I scripturally point out CCCer’s illegitimacy as a disciple and irreverent church member, and all he can do is call me a Pharisee and send me to the naughty chair for my poor English. He expects to dish out damning judgment and refuses to receive loving correction.
There are ways of dealing with error, but your way isn’t it.
So, Steve, how do you convince a “reverend” who denies the inerrancy of scripture?
Do you honestly think YOUR words have more power than God’s Word does, to condemn the teaching/instruction of false teachers Tom?
As long as he has a god of his own imagination, the only way to deal with him is to go before the Lord in prayer for his salvation…..
As long as this “bickering” goes on between fellow believers in the inerrancy of scripture (you, CCCer and I), over how to talk to Tom, (a man who obviously holds heretical views and belief in an errant bible) we are playing in the devils playground……
You support CCCer’s means of communicating to Tom?
It’s not my words or anyone’s words which have power. It’s the way they are delivered which makes the difference.
The Pharisees, as noted here, had the same Word as Jesus, but they used it incorrectly. He spoke by the Spirit out of live, they by legalism out of judgment.
Same words, different outcome.
The first rule of witnessing is discovering the candidate’s position from a position of love, grace and mercy. You win souls. You don’t crush them.
As to his ministry, if he were to stay any length of time, we would get to it, and we could speak into it. Patience is another virtue in witnessing.
Condemnation isn’t.
I believe that essentially scripture is inerrant, but we may render it in error if we do not rightly divide it and minister it.
Very Finney of you Steve!
Meaning?
@Steve,
“Apart from that, I’ll resist your folly in likening me to a Pharisee, and let that go through to the Keeper.”
My profuse and genuine apologies there Steve, I didn’t at all intend to liken you to a Pharisee!
I was speaking of the modus operandi of so many pentecostal churches; the qualities I listed were in reference to such churches, and were not intended as a slight against you. So the extent to which you would be familiar with them are because these attributes can also be found within the C3 movement (although I understand that C3 churches have a high degree of independence and latitude, and are thus are not necessarily all tarred with the same brush).
It occurred to me after I posted that what I has said was easily open to misinterpretation; it is entirely my fault for expressing myself poorly.
OK
Time for some light relief.
Are you a PHARISEE, SADUCEE, ZEALOT, OR BELIEVER? Take this quiz and find out.
I passed so suck it up, you who doubted.
I’m a believer (Then I received His grace, now I’m a believer. Not a trace – of doubt in my mind. I’m in His love. Ooooo I’m a believer, I couldn’t leave Him if I tried – from the Calvinist Monkees).
http://www.selectsmart.com/FREE/select.php?client=pharisee
What might a Christian Pharisee look like then?
Maybe one who loves doctrine over God and their fellow humans.
@Bones,
I did the test.
My number one ranking said “Pharisee”, and I thought “Well that’s no good, is it?”
But it also says, parenthetically “Religious Right”; so I passed OK, after all!
Didn’t I?
I’d like to know what a Calvinist Monkey might look like!
One for Margot:
Margot, you keep wanting to talk about LGBT issues! I won’t shy away, but again, that does not have much to do with the topic at hand. I suppose for you, the topic at hand is whether or not you are correct in your impugning of my soul. I guess that topic is more fun for you than answering the questions I posed to you waaaaaaaay upthread about what you think one must believe about the Bible in order to be saved. Since Christian arrogance that stamps out and attempts to silence the truth about LGBT people should be addressed, I’ll play this game with you, although I really would appreciate you answering my original question.
You assume that the only path God has made available for LGBT people is conversion and repentance. But that is not a biblically-based assumption. To the contrary, a different paradigm for contra-”biblical” revelation is outlined in the Bible itself, in Acts. With LGBT people as with Gentiles, God has revealed something else, and the proof of this is the presence and embodiment of the Holy Spirit upon LGBT people who are believers. Again, have you not read Acts 10? If it is true that God has made a way for LGBT people that does not begin with sexual “conversion,” then the blasphemous thing to do would be to ‘call profane that which has been made clean.”
@ Tom – I care more about what the Lord has SAID than I do about what you THINK He’s saying…..
The presence and embodiment of the Holy Spirit upon LGBT people who are conscience of their sinful lifestyle, who by the power of the Holy Spirit, repent of that sinful lifestyle and look to Him ……
@Tom – it’s difficult to dialogue with someone who can’t/won’t use the bible as moral truth. If you don’t believe the bible condemns homosexuality then of course it’s no stretch to believe you support gay marriage/lifestyle.
As with all sin, it’s to be laid at the foot of the cross and repented of. So with that in mind, should I compromise my Christian worldview for the sake of political correctness? No.
In all this I’m addressing you personally as a self-proclaimed “reverend”, I’m not addressing other individuals. You are the one in line for a greater judgment.
Finally the bible assures us the Lord will lose none that the Father has given Him and as the elect were chosen in Him before the foundation of the world, including repentant GLBT believers, nothing you or I debate back and forth about, will change that…..
@Margot, you’re arguing against straw men here. I don’t deny that the Bible condemns certain forms of homosexual behavior, and I do believe the Bible is a source of moral truth. Did you read my posts above? Of course I support “gay marriage/lifestyle.” As I’ve stated twice now, I believe that God has poured out the Holy Spirit upon his LGBT children, which means that the appropriate thing do do here is get out of the way and celebrate God, not try to undo and withhold the grace that has already been extended,
If I understand anything about life as a Christian, it’s that we all struggle with sin, it’s the human condition. All Christians are sinners, the only hope we have is that our sin is covered with Christ’s righteousness and not our own.
It’s that struggle we all face daily, and yet Tom would have us believe it excludes a gay lifestyle made acceptable by some bizarre extra-biblical infilling of the Holy Spirit?
That’s funny, Margot – unless you are of Jewish descent, you can thank Peter’s “bizarre extra-biblical infilling of the Holy Spirit” for your own access to Jesus, my friend! Lest you forget, the events described in the Book of Acts upended prior scriptural norms, given the revelation that had occurred thus far. Subsequently, Gentiles no longer had to undergo Jewish conversion prior to becoming believers. That is simply what the story says on its face, and I believe there is some fairly direct application to LGBT people, where the Holy Spirit has clearly been poured out. But instead of embracing what is new and true, you’re like the Jewish-Christian purists who are struggling to uphold your “no” over what God clearly has done.
It is ridiculous to say that I am advocating that LGBT people have no sin. Of course they do, as do all of us. What I do declare, based on my own experience and that of literally millions of Christians, is that the Holy Spirit has been poured out upon LGBT people – they have the same “access” as anyone else. There is nothing sinful about being born lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered – exactly as there is nothing sinful about being born with heterosexual proclivities. It’s what we do with our behavior that matters, and there are certain Christian ethics that must inform our decisions and lifestyle choices, there’s no doubt about that.
This would be a lot easier on my end if you would go familiarize yourself with some of the scholarship surrounding the verses that you believe condemn homosexuality. Upon closer examination, you’ll find that the verses condemn very specific types of same-sex behavior, behavior which occurs in a significantly different context than, say, today’s myriad same-sex couples who married and monogamous. The verses which condemn certain types of homosexual behavior in the Bible do not constitute a blanket condemnation of all homosexuality, any more than verses which condemn certain sex acts between men and women constitute a blanket condemnation of heterosexuality.
Perhaps you could continue that conversation on an appropriate thread, say…
http://signposts02.wordpress.com/2011/08/18/christians-4-equality/
Then we can continue here discussing whether the Bible is God or not!
Better to go straight to
http://signposts02.wordpress.com/2011/08/18/christians-4-equality/#comment-22417
to continue this conversation since there is a long thread on issues not related to the post starring 5PS!
@Steve – that’s one way to do it!
You gotta love Margot. She won’t let go! I almost feel sorry for her five brothers!
@ Steve get over the patronising act.
It seems I am fighting a lonely battle here at the moment, since you have decided that “Tom is far more developed in his faith for Christ than you realise”. Yet the ones I care for, are the ones Tom is leading astray.
People who will, thankfully, if they are truly redeemed, will leave his sphere of influence, led by that Holy Spirit that Tom seems to think is a unique outpouring for them? .As if they are somehow different to any sinner?
As self-appointed pastor and watch-dog over ex or anti-C3ers, when we speak truthfully about God’s word, you seem to have this odd need to take the other side (Tom in this instance).
It’s quite strange Steve, and quite apparent!
@Margot – don’t let me interrupt your preconceived notions, but if you are in fact interested in carrying this conversation any further, would you please go back and read what I’ve written in response to you thus far, instead of simply repeating the same statements that I’ve already addressed. Thanks.
A very good Christian resource on issues such as this can be found at “The Council on Biblical Manhood & Womanhood”
http://www.cbmw.org/Blog/Posts/The-Church-and-the-Clobber-Scriptures-the-Bible-on-Homosexuality
And there’s so much more that deals with this topic (and others)graciously and biblically.
@ Tom – there are points where we agree (the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on Gentiles), however I never said or implied anything about “a Jewish conversion prior to becoming believers”.
Where we part company is over the issue of a separate set of scriptural interpretations on homosexuality .
Am I right in assuming you celebrate/affirm gay relationships as if they are of God and inspired/endorsed by the Holy Spirit?
Conspiracy theory, Margot? Watch-dog? Lonely battle? Patronising? I was trying to be friendly! As in having fun!
I’ve said what I need to on the appropriate thread, and it’s hardly taking Tom’s ‘side’. Is there a ‘side’? Your ‘side’?
http://signposts02.wordpress.com/2011/08/18/christians-4-equality/#comment-22420
I could care less if you’re anti-C3. That’s your problem. But at east now you’ve confessed it.
Your brothers didn’t have a chance!
Sheesh!
@ Steve – I’m exC3, the “anti” was for others who have blogged here in the past…
Makes no difference to me, Margot. I don’t take ‘sides’ with you or against you. I just give a perspective.
I’m certainly not interested in some kind of gang mentality against a commenter.
So you’re not anti-C3, then?
@ Tom – for your perusal…
http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2010/11/homophobia.html
So Tom, with respect, are you part of the answer, or more seriously, are you part of the problem?
Margot, could you take your comments on this subject over to the other thread, please?
http://signposts02.wordpress.com/2011/08/18/christians-4-equality/#comment-22423
@ Steve – not going there anymore re C3.
I would prefer to wait for Tom to respond to my comments above at 7:28 and 8:32…..
Maybe Tom could respond on the other thread.
Tom,
“I don’t deny that the Bible condemns certain forms of homosexual behavior [...]”
The Bible condemns *all* forms of sexual immorality, including even our lustful thoughts and covetous desires.
When I look on a woman with lust in my heart, I have to repent. If I don’t repent, I have no peace – only the constant nagging of my conscience and the conviction that the Holy Spirit brings when I have done wrong.
God has set the bar high, Tom, but you are deliberately aiming low so that you will not miss *your* mark. You seek to justify immoral behaviour, but that which you would allow cannot be justified any more than my sin or anyone else’s sin can be justified or rationalised or allowed. There is only one thing you can do with sin, and that is to repent of it and turn again to God. That is what I do when I am aware of having sinned. It is what we all must do – there are no exceptions for anyone, nor for any class or type of sin.
So you can either repent, or you will pay the price. It is no different than it is for anyone else. Sin is sin, and the wages of sin is death. There are only two choices in this world: repent or perish. There is no peace for the wicked, Tom.
Except you forgot the rest of the verse – but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ. We are no longer under the curse of sin – except you seem to think we are. So it’s get saved but them live a perfectly sinless life – and too bad if you have a different idea of what sin is to CCCer – he’s the one that;s right – not you Tom – you grace filled, love focused evil wolf you
@ Greg – using your method, let’s go back to the beginning of Roamns chapter 6 and put CCCer’s scripture back in it’s “context, context, context” (the three rules for interpreting scripture).
“What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us owho have been baptized pinto Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. For one who has died has been set free from sin. Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.
Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions. Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness. For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.
What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness.I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification.
For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. But what fruit were you getting at that time from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
You forgot the 4 rule of biblical interpretation…if it sounds good and let’s you off the hook…
Hi y’all,
Sunday approaches. I’m sorry to say, but my desire to block out mental and spiritual space in preparation for worship outweighs my desire to argue with you and attend to your questions on this blog in the meantime. Perhaps I’ll see ya next week?
Happy Sabbath,
TR