You are viewing the older version of this Weblog. I have left this version available for those of you who do not have Javascript enabled in your web browser.
If you have Javascript enabled and would like to view the lastest version of this Weblog, please go here.
If you have Javascript enabled and would like to view the lastest version of this Weblog, please go here.
October 12, 2005
"Is the Bible the word of God?"
Is the Bible the word of God?
I’ve been thinking about this question a lot lately. Recent conversations with other Christians have been striking me as quite odd when I hear someone refer to the bible as “the word of God.” I can’t explain why. Some of it, I know, has to do with John 1:1-5 (NKJ):
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.I don’t think John is speaking of the bible in those verses… But, is that all? Honestly, I don’t know.
Over the last few weeks, I have been slowly making my way thtough Mark M. Mattison‘s essay, “Is the Bible Inerrant.” I’m not going to get into what the essay is about or what I think about it — although, I will recommend that you read it — but, coincidentally, there is a passage in it that lends itself to this recent question in my mind:
Is the Bible the word of God?Anyway, I’m sure it’s not a “sin” to call the bible the “word of God,” but maybe we should all think twice about actually calling it that.
Many Christians refer to the Bible as “the word of God.” The intent is to affirm and reinforce the divine inspiration of the Bible. However, the Bible never calls itself “the word of God” either. Why not? Because “the word” cannot be distilled to written words on a page. “For the word of God is living and active” (Heb. 4:12a, NIV). God sends forth His word, and it does not return to Him until it has accomplished its purpose (Isa. 55:10,11). The word of God spreads on earth (Acts 6:7a). We are “born again…through the living and enduring word of God” (1 Pet. 1:23, NIV). The word of God lives in us (1 John 2:14). Through God’s word all things were made (John 1:1-3). Jesus’ name is the word of God (Rev. 19:13). The word of God, the revealed truth of God, is not a book, even though our book reveals many things about God. But the two are not synonymous.
What, then, does the Bible call itself? The Biblical term for the Bible is “the holy Scriptures” (2 Tim. 3:15, NIV) or simply “the Scriptures” (John 5:39, NIV). The term “Scriptures” (literally, “writings”) emphasizes the character of the Bible as a library. The Scriptures of this library are “holy” or set apart from others. They are the books recognized by the church (by Christians) as inspired and normative.
Does this subtle distinction between “word of God” and “holy Scriptures” matter? It may. Why? Referring to the Bible collectively as “the word of God” may help to emphasize its divine inspiration and authority, but it may also tempt us to homogenize the distinctive testimonies of the Bible’s many parts. This may prevent us from developing a more well-rounded appreciation of its message and limit our understanding of what God’s word is. Hence we would do well to recognize the Bible as a holy library rather than a monolithic unit dropped straight out of heaven. But how do we know that this library contains the right books?
Posted at 4:32 pm
Trackback:Trackback Link:
Please enable javascript to generate a trackback url
Comments (28):
Absolutely agree… however, there will be those who are too enculturized to see what they are doing. I’ve even been “uninvited” to teach at certain conferences because I called the Bible, “the Scriptures” or “the text”, but would not call it the “word of God.” Unbelievable.
Mike DeVries () (URL) - October 12, 2005 at 6:43 pm
It seems to me that in the New Testament, “word of God” usually refers to the gospel message, not a body of writings. For example, Acts 17:31:
“When the Jews in Thessalonica learned that Paul was preaching the word of God at Berea, they went there too, agitating the crowds and stirring them up.”
We also read in Acts about how the word of God “multiplied” — obviously not talking about Scriptures.
“When the Jews in Thessalonica learned that Paul was preaching the word of God at Berea, they went there too, agitating the crowds and stirring them up.”
We also read in Acts about how the word of God “multiplied” — obviously not talking about Scriptures.
SteveJ () (URL) - October 12, 2005 at 8:52 pm
Thanks guys… Good comments. Sorry about your experiences, though, Mike!
timsamoff () (URL) - October 12, 2005 at 10:44 pm
How can we say that the bible isn’t the word of God if men were inspired by God to write it and God through men confirming what God ordained canonized it? I believe the word of God is living but I also believe God doesn’t go against His word (I’m saying word here not in the text part for I do believe in God speaking to people outside of the Bible but consistent with the Bible). So I feel it is a combination of living Word like SteveJ said and the Bible. To say the Bible isn’t the Word of God is saying that part of the Word of God isn’t there when in fact it is.
DH () - October 13, 2005 at 08:21 am
I think that maybe there’s an important distinction to be made between “words from God” (e.g., the bible) and the “Word of God” (e.g., Jesus, the gospel, us [?]).
timsamoff () (URL) - October 13, 2005 at 08:29 am
However, what God said that Jesus didn’t say is not just “words from God” but also the “Word of God” as well. Also, what we do that is consistent with the Bible is also the “Word of God”. This makes the “word of God” living like you say. I would say we are the “Word of God” what we project in word or deed that is consistent with the Bible is the “Word of God”.
I always liked what you said that the entire Bible should be “red letters”. You always encouraged me when you said this. Love ya bro, DH :)
I always liked what you said that the entire Bible should be “red letters”. You always encouraged me when you said this. Love ya bro, DH :)
dh () - October 13, 2005 at 08:52 am
“I would say we are the “Word of God”” Should be “areN’T. sorry,
dh () - October 13, 2005 at 08:54 am
Tim:
I always find it very interesting that I can take any two people; have them read a portion of the Bible, and get very similar yet still distinctly different explainations of what they have just read. My experience is that we get from the Bible what we need at a given point in time. Therefore, dependent on what your experience has been and where your head is at a given point you will read it differently. To prove this, just think of how often you’ve read a section of scripture and had an insight or understanding of meaning you never saw before. It happens to me all the time. Because of this I would say this: “The Bible is not the inerrant Word of God, rather the Word of God is inherent in the Bible.”
Larry
I always find it very interesting that I can take any two people; have them read a portion of the Bible, and get very similar yet still distinctly different explainations of what they have just read. My experience is that we get from the Bible what we need at a given point in time. Therefore, dependent on what your experience has been and where your head is at a given point you will read it differently. To prove this, just think of how often you’ve read a section of scripture and had an insight or understanding of meaning you never saw before. It happens to me all the time. Because of this I would say this: “The Bible is not the inerrant Word of God, rather the Word of God is inherent in the Bible.”
Larry
Larry Barbary () - October 13, 2005 at 09:36 am
I just can’t say the Bible is not inerrant. I think we alway need to make sure that what we appear to get from Scripture is what God wants us to get from Scripture or is it just in our mind and not from God. This takes discernment from the Holy Spirit. I try, and I’m not always successful, to do this but some of the time I fail. I think the Bereans did this with their discernment of events in Acts. Saying something is “not from God” when it actually is just as wrong as saying something “is from God” when it actually isn’t. That is where the Holy Spirit helps us and some of the time I fail on this. God help us all. :)
DH () - October 13, 2005 at 09:53 am
Tim: I don’t think John is speaking of the bible in those verses…
Well, he couldn’t have been, since the bible, as such, didn’t exist when he was speaking those lines.
DH:How can we say that the bible isn’t the word of God if men were inspired by God to write it and God through men confirming what God ordained canonized it?
You can think what you like, DH, but realize that your thoughts are built around a number of assumptions that everyone else doesn’t necessarily share. The first of these is that the Bible is inspired and therefore inerrant. The second of these is that, even if it were inspired, that the cobbling together of the disparate texts which comprise it was also inspired. There are many who gain value from the book without believing either of those scenarios.
Well, he couldn’t have been, since the bible, as such, didn’t exist when he was speaking those lines.
DH:How can we say that the bible isn’t the word of God if men were inspired by God to write it and God through men confirming what God ordained canonized it?
You can think what you like, DH, but realize that your thoughts are built around a number of assumptions that everyone else doesn’t necessarily share. The first of these is that the Bible is inspired and therefore inerrant. The second of these is that, even if it were inspired, that the cobbling together of the disparate texts which comprise it was also inspired. There are many who gain value from the book without believing either of those scenarios.
wheat () (URL) - October 13, 2005 at 10:41 am
I’m with DH on most points especially directly above. Though i might be willing to admit that some texts have a double meaning. Now, i’m not trying to be difficult but… why is this distinction disturbing? I have to admit and i’m totally okay with it and see no real theological inconsistency. No way would Mike be invited to speak at my church with that view. And i’d support it. Unless it were a class of open discussion of course.. I’m having a hard time understanding why this is an issue. The Word of God is His message.. His message is in the scriptures. Am i being ignorant? Too simplistic? I personally think the caution Mark is proposing regarding this distinction is a bit similar to hair splitting. Its an interesting thought but i wouldn’t call for an emergency Westminster Confession meeting or something. Maybe i’m wrong but i would need better arguments for why we SHOULDN’T call it the Word of God than possible “homogenization”. Sorry if i offend.
dennisthemenace () - October 13, 2005 at 10:42 am
actually, Wheat it DID exist. The written pages may not have been completed nor history but it would be consistent with His nature that His message already did as well the events that were determined that would textulize the Bible. And even your thoughts are built presuppositions. DH can certainly carry his own so i wont speak for him, but the stance your taking is that of a presuppositionalist. Great. Tim tells me you’re not dummy so i would recommend Faith and Reason as a good read. I think you’ll find that making such statements doesn’t necessarily prove a point but rather leaves you to argue yours from the same place DH is. I think you’d dig it. Its a killer book and i am still re-reading it.
dennisthemenace () - October 13, 2005 at 10:51 am
You may be right, Dennis… It’s just something I’ve been thinking about.
Two great sentences:
> The Word of God is His
> message.. His message
> is in the scriptures.
As for what Wheat said… I think there’s more to what he said about assumptions than you’re giving him credit (but, that might be a discussion for another day).
As for the Word of God existing… Yeah, it is my belief that it (He) always has.
As for the message? I don’t know. There was a time (albeit brief) when the message wasn’t exactly necessary.
Two great sentences:
> The Word of God is His
> message.. His message
> is in the scriptures.
As for what Wheat said… I think there’s more to what he said about assumptions than you’re giving him credit (but, that might be a discussion for another day).
As for the Word of God existing… Yeah, it is my belief that it (He) always has.
As for the message? I don’t know. There was a time (albeit brief) when the message wasn’t exactly necessary.
timsamoff () (URL) - October 13, 2005 at 11:00 am
I guess I feel there is not more to what is said about assumptions. Why the necessity to think the coppelation compromises the text? Why not believe the scenarios? I personally feel the message was always necessary one for Faith in the future and one for Faith for what took place in the past. (as you know this is an oversimplification but I feel puts into perspective the message that has always been there the Faith in the one true God alone)
dh () - October 13, 2005 at 11:18 am
The message I was talking about “I am the same yesterday, today and forever.” I feel shows the message of Faith in Him alone as being constant throughout history as well as for the future.
dh () - October 13, 2005 at 11:27 am
Dennis: I certainly didn’t mean to imply (and upon rereading my post, I do not think that I did imply) that my own thinking is privileged and somehow without presuppositions. I can understand where DH is coming from. I think his statements are generally internally consistent (this thread included). I was responding to what I took to be his inability to understand how one could think otherwise about inerrancy.
I come at this problem from a different perspective. To me, the Bible is a book first. And, like any book, it’s open to interpretation. From my point of view, the existence and/or importance of the bible (as literal instruction book for life) and the existence/importance of God are two very different and non-exclusive propositions. I have far less trouble believing in the existence of God than believing that his being could be accurately conveyed to us in a book.
I appreciate the book recommendation and will add it to my list. I still have to read the book Tim was kind enough to send me first. While I’m at it, I’ll recommend a book for you (any of you), too: Bishop John Shelby Spong’s Why Christianity Must Change or Die.
I come at this problem from a different perspective. To me, the Bible is a book first. And, like any book, it’s open to interpretation. From my point of view, the existence and/or importance of the bible (as literal instruction book for life) and the existence/importance of God are two very different and non-exclusive propositions. I have far less trouble believing in the existence of God than believing that his being could be accurately conveyed to us in a book.
I appreciate the book recommendation and will add it to my list. I still have to read the book Tim was kind enough to send me first. While I’m at it, I’ll recommend a book for you (any of you), too: Bishop John Shelby Spong’s Why Christianity Must Change or Die.
wheat () (URL) - October 13, 2005 at 7:55 pm
the Word mentioned in John 1:1 is Christ. Christ has been with God from the very beginning. If you read Genisis where the world is being created, the word “us” is used. Let us make man in “our” image….
latisha () (URL) - October 13, 2005 at 9:16 pm
Thanks for your comment, Latisha… Yeah, I thought I inferred that in my original post, but maybe I could have been more clear. Thanks for clarifying. 
timsamoff () (URL) - October 14, 2005 at 07:49 am
Wheat,
I’ll actually look that up. Now about your statement “I have far less trouble believing in the existence of God than believing that his being could be accurately conveyed to us in a book.” This is funny, cause i’ve said this myself not to mention hear lots of commentary on it. And really, what do you suppose would be a more conventional and convincing way to convey it? Imagine if we WERE still getting inspired, devine messages (some still claim to), how would we validate that? You’d probably be asking something like “Where is this written?”. haha.
I have some thoughts inspired from the book title (though i’m interested in reading it). Christianity doesn’t need to change. Otherwise it wouldnt be Christianity anymore. The church on the other hand, as long as its made of flesh, will always need change. And i’m pretty confident that those changes would only make non christians like us less (outside those who become believers). If it died, either it was never Christianity or the world has simply become more rebellious. That doesn’t invalidate Christianity. Actually, in regards to sin and human nature, it would validate it. Martin Luther made changes… i don’t think it won him any popularity poles though, haha.
I’ll actually look that up. Now about your statement “I have far less trouble believing in the existence of God than believing that his being could be accurately conveyed to us in a book.” This is funny, cause i’ve said this myself not to mention hear lots of commentary on it. And really, what do you suppose would be a more conventional and convincing way to convey it? Imagine if we WERE still getting inspired, devine messages (some still claim to), how would we validate that? You’d probably be asking something like “Where is this written?”. haha.
I have some thoughts inspired from the book title (though i’m interested in reading it). Christianity doesn’t need to change. Otherwise it wouldnt be Christianity anymore. The church on the other hand, as long as its made of flesh, will always need change. And i’m pretty confident that those changes would only make non christians like us less (outside those who become believers). If it died, either it was never Christianity or the world has simply become more rebellious. That doesn’t invalidate Christianity. Actually, in regards to sin and human nature, it would validate it. Martin Luther made changes… i don’t think it won him any popularity poles though, haha.
dennisthemenace () - October 14, 2005 at 4:16 pm
Wow, there are definitely some interesting posts here.
This is a first time post for me.
I understand that the Word of God in John 1:1-5 is telling us that (in context of the rest of the passage) Jesus is the Word of God who became flesh. John seemed to really like to point out in his writings that Jesus Christ was divine, and that the Father’s Will and Word lived fully in Him. So I am thinking that this passage is pointing to the fact that Jesus fully embodied God’s Will & Word while in the flesh, and is meant to tell us more about who Jesus Christ is. I believe this to be written this way so that we can all trust that EVERY word Jesus spoke was authoritative and divine (as for the canonicity of each of the books chosen, that is a obviously a huge topic! I recommend F.F. Bruce’s – “The Canon of Scripture” as a scholarly and great read!)
As far as calling the Bible the “Word of God”...well, this seems like a semantical separation. A lot seems to rest upon the meaning that you pour into the phrase “The Word of God.” Some believe that the Bible is the completely inspired Word of God. Others only believe that the writers may have been inspired, but that we cannot trust the accuracy of the Bible today, and others, believe it is only helpful and not inspired at all.
As for me, I believe that “all scripture is inspired by God” as written by Paul to Timothy (2 Tim. 3:16…sorry if the quotation is not exact) – therefore – if the scriptures are inspired by God, I don’t have a problem calling the Bible “The Word of God” or maybe to clarify I should call it “The Written Word of God.”
I definitely don’t think that this should be a topic that Christians divide over. But the point that Tim is making is well taken by myself. The Bible does speak about God’s word being living and active, which I believe is an important distinction between black letters (or red for that matter) on a page. I would even say that we are to be God’s word in a way by the fact that we should carry the message that the Holy Spirit may give us day to day. In this way, we carry the Word of God to those who may be ready to receive it, thus, dividing the deepest part of the man with words (inspiration) of God that are extremely active and living.
Well, I think the topic has been thorougly interesting, and please, if I have made some obvious errors, feel free to correct them!
Take care!
This is a first time post for me.
I understand that the Word of God in John 1:1-5 is telling us that (in context of the rest of the passage) Jesus is the Word of God who became flesh. John seemed to really like to point out in his writings that Jesus Christ was divine, and that the Father’s Will and Word lived fully in Him. So I am thinking that this passage is pointing to the fact that Jesus fully embodied God’s Will & Word while in the flesh, and is meant to tell us more about who Jesus Christ is. I believe this to be written this way so that we can all trust that EVERY word Jesus spoke was authoritative and divine (as for the canonicity of each of the books chosen, that is a obviously a huge topic! I recommend F.F. Bruce’s – “The Canon of Scripture” as a scholarly and great read!)
As far as calling the Bible the “Word of God”...well, this seems like a semantical separation. A lot seems to rest upon the meaning that you pour into the phrase “The Word of God.” Some believe that the Bible is the completely inspired Word of God. Others only believe that the writers may have been inspired, but that we cannot trust the accuracy of the Bible today, and others, believe it is only helpful and not inspired at all.
As for me, I believe that “all scripture is inspired by God” as written by Paul to Timothy (2 Tim. 3:16…sorry if the quotation is not exact) – therefore – if the scriptures are inspired by God, I don’t have a problem calling the Bible “The Word of God” or maybe to clarify I should call it “The Written Word of God.”
I definitely don’t think that this should be a topic that Christians divide over. But the point that Tim is making is well taken by myself. The Bible does speak about God’s word being living and active, which I believe is an important distinction between black letters (or red for that matter) on a page. I would even say that we are to be God’s word in a way by the fact that we should carry the message that the Holy Spirit may give us day to day. In this way, we carry the Word of God to those who may be ready to receive it, thus, dividing the deepest part of the man with words (inspiration) of God that are extremely active and living.
Well, I think the topic has been thorougly interesting, and please, if I have made some obvious errors, feel free to correct them!
Take care!
Mikey () - October 19, 2005 at 02:43 am
Thanks, Mikey… For taking the time to comment and for making some great points!
timsamoff () (URL) - October 19, 2005 at 05:58 am
I have pondered this issue for the better part of 2 years now. I am a believer in Christ but I have fallen further and further on the side of belief that the Bible is not the word of God – but instead man’s best attempts to pass along various understandings of God thru the observations of the progression of both the Jewish and Christian religions up to a certain point in time. There are those who find the necessity of coming to a conclusion on the matter insignificant. However, I consider the arguments of our modern day unbelievers very compelling and for this reason I have begun to see the churches’ demand for this sort of dogma to be taken as a tenet of faith to ultimately be a huge stumbling block for those who would otherwise come to the core tenets of Christianity in a modern way. The church is, in my opinion, calling the earth flat once again.
Greg () - October 10, 2007 at 8:50 pm
I still think that the Bible is the Word of God in that God spoke the the Bible by having “All Scripture being the inspiration of God..”. Also, John 1:1 says it plainly as well in conjuction with the first sentence I said,“In the beginning was the Word and the was with God and the Word was God.” It seems that it isn’t amutually exclusive thing to believe that Scripture is the Word of God in conjuction with Jesus being the Word of God. Also, the “living Word of God” is always consistent with what God says in the Word. Every time I have seen the “living aspect of the Word” it has always been consistent with Scripture. Just because an argument is compelling doesn’t make that the argument is correct. I still don’t believe the church is calling the “earth flat”.
dh () - October 11, 2007 at 10:41 am
Hi DH, My comment that I find the argument compelling is probably an understatement of my true beliefs. I find arguments such as yours to be somewhat circular….in other words you use the bible to try to prove that something in the bible is true. If you have studied the history of the creation of the bible then you are surely aware that it was conceived in an attempt to take the most popular writings of the day and make them into a “canon”....or a group of writings that everyone could agree on. This had nothing to do with what is ultimately true or false about God. To suggest that God somehow directed the complete input of every scripture that resides in the bible is to me absurd because it implies that God at one great moment in history for one magical moment in time was able to direct men in a perfect way for this purpose. However, it has become clear to me that God does not interfere in the affairs of men in this fashion today – so he did not do it then either. The choices that were made were the best decisions of the men of that time – or perhaps not. If the canon were to be considered today how many votes would you be able to find that would allow the passage that prohibits women from speaking in the church to remain in. Almost zero. God’s word (or the bible) would be altered if it were created today. It also is almost an insult to God to suggest that the scriptures which are clearly riddled with contradictions (for anyone not willing to play the stand on my head and twist my arms around my back game) is the best he could do.
Greg () - October 11, 2007 at 11:36 am
It is not circular in that I understand how the Bible was created. I also believe that the canon was inspired by God as well. It was done by vote but done with specific standards agreed to as inspired by God and thus determined by God as humble servents what was truly inspired. Also, your reference of an analogy of if the Scripture “were drawn up today” doesn’t work because God says through His Word that “no man can add one title to this Word.” So, I don’t buy the analogy for that reason. Also, it is not clearly riddled with contradictions. Also you say “However, it has become clear to me that God does not interfere in the affairs of men in this fashion today – so he did not do it then either.” I disagree with this. I believe God DOES involve Himself in the affairs of man. I believe it is an insult to God to suggest that Scripture is full of contradictions that can be explained especially if you look at the context of the specific Scriptures as opposed to “proof text” alone.
I believe you have a flawed understanding of the nature of God to say that God doesn’t interfere with or involves Himself with the cares of men (people). God is Holy and that is part of His omnipotence, omniscience, etc. One can’t claim either or without having the other. The terms of each are mutually exclusive. To suggest that the Bible as it is the “best He can do” when the point of having men involved was to have the personality of the men as part of the perfection of the Scriptures. To me the consistency of Scripture among humble men used by God to write Scripture shows the magnitude of how incredible God is to use imperfect men for His perfected purpose.
I believe you have a flawed understanding of the nature of God to say that God doesn’t interfere with or involves Himself with the cares of men (people). God is Holy and that is part of His omnipotence, omniscience, etc. One can’t claim either or without having the other. The terms of each are mutually exclusive. To suggest that the Bible as it is the “best He can do” when the point of having men involved was to have the personality of the men as part of the perfection of the Scriptures. To me the consistency of Scripture among humble men used by God to write Scripture shows the magnitude of how incredible God is to use imperfect men for His perfected purpose.
dh () - October 11, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Hi again DH,
I want to post one last comment on this topic. I want you to be aware of just how significant I believe the bible to be. Of all the books that attempt to point a man to a knowledge of God – I believe it has no peer. If for no other reason it contains the personal testimonies of men who I feel I can trust in this matter – and Christ of course is found there as well. I was also one of those when I was younger who believed exactly as you do now. And I was not seeking to shatter my own perception of the bible when it began to unravel for me – but it is something that I am glad now has happened because it has opened a door in my mind to so much more life giving understanding. For me it falls in the category of a “truth that sets free”. I won’t attempt to argue my points any further as I believe the truth of my points are only in clear sight to those who have need of them. And perhaps you are currently not such a person in need. So I will just leave you with these last thoughts. 1.) The vast majority of Muslims also believe that the Koran is the inerrant inspired “Word of God”. 2.) The bible says that in the last days men will expell belivers from the church – thinking they are doing God a favor. 3.) The history of your MAINSTREAM belief in the inerrant Bible is a modern trend and this belief was not held by the MAINSTREAM of the early church at the time of the creation of the canon. Perhaps the dangers that I see in making a book magical in ones’ mind are real – particularly as we see fundamentalist Christians getting ready to do battle with fundamentalist Muslims all over the world.
I want to post one last comment on this topic. I want you to be aware of just how significant I believe the bible to be. Of all the books that attempt to point a man to a knowledge of God – I believe it has no peer. If for no other reason it contains the personal testimonies of men who I feel I can trust in this matter – and Christ of course is found there as well. I was also one of those when I was younger who believed exactly as you do now. And I was not seeking to shatter my own perception of the bible when it began to unravel for me – but it is something that I am glad now has happened because it has opened a door in my mind to so much more life giving understanding. For me it falls in the category of a “truth that sets free”. I won’t attempt to argue my points any further as I believe the truth of my points are only in clear sight to those who have need of them. And perhaps you are currently not such a person in need. So I will just leave you with these last thoughts. 1.) The vast majority of Muslims also believe that the Koran is the inerrant inspired “Word of God”. 2.) The bible says that in the last days men will expell belivers from the church – thinking they are doing God a favor. 3.) The history of your MAINSTREAM belief in the inerrant Bible is a modern trend and this belief was not held by the MAINSTREAM of the early church at the time of the creation of the canon. Perhaps the dangers that I see in making a book magical in ones’ mind are real – particularly as we see fundamentalist Christians getting ready to do battle with fundamentalist Muslims all over the world.
Greg () - October 11, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Well Greg, I really take offense that you say that my position makes the Bible seem “magical” when in fact it is not sense God ordained it with the explaination I gave on the last sentence of my previous post. Also, to compare my position in any way to fundamentalist Muslims is really over the top and a gross overgeneralization of my position that really should not be used in any comparison in any way. When I read 2 Timothy 3 and 2 Peter 3 (beyond the innerancy part and onto the last days
Greg, I DO have a Truth that sets me free. It is the Truth that God is in control and it is freeing to know that I have the confidence that God is omnipotent, omniscient, etc. and that there is a security in knowing that not everything is random as you seem to project.
Also, I mentioned earlier my concern I have for your understanding of the nature of God. We must as Christians realize that Christ was fully God and fully man. Maybe you passed over the “life giving understanding” that you originally had? Maybe the unraveling was not from the Holy Spirit?
With regard to “expelling Believers” didn’t the Apostle Paul address people who happened to have “false doctrine”, “false teachers”, etc.? I’m sure some of them might have been “Believers”. We as Believers must really look at Scripture in light of Scripture.
Also, the fact is not all “innerancy” is the same. The Early church DID believe in innerancy of Scripture. The “MANY” you talk about were the Gnostics who were heretics who had a wrong understanding of the nature of God and followed the concerns laid out in 2 Timothy 3 and 2 Peter 3.
I think your suggestion that my view is “magical”, the statement about “God not interfering with the affairs of men (people)” really concerns me. To me this take away how Christ and the Trinity DOES care about every single detail of us. Even God says “Before the foundation of the world I knew you”, “Before you were in your mothers womb I knew you”, “even the number of your hairs on your head are numbered”. To me your under5standing of God diminishes this strong personality of how God cares about every single detail of us and desires us to be in His perfect will as compered to being permisive will let alone outside of God’s Will altogether.
I personally see more danger in being “lukewarm” against untruth.
With regard to your “battle” concept with fundamentalist Muslims I believe is also flawed for God says “We wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities and powers and rulers of this dark and present evil age.” I believe this shows that my position is not “fundamentalist” in that that definition (before 10 years ago) referred to more of the attitude of how Truth of what the Word of God said as opposed to the Belief itself. It has only been when in the past 10 years that people have projected the term “fundamentalist” to those who believe in innerent Scripture. I believe that is wrong in light of the proper use of the term.
What really concerns me about your position is what I said here: “To me this take away how Christ and the Trinity DOES care about every single detail of us. Even God says “Before the foundation of the world I knew you”, “Before you were in your mothers womb I knew you”, “even the number of your hairs on your head are numbered”. To me your under5standing of God diminishes this strong personality of how God cares about every single detail of us and desires us to be in His perfect will as compered to being permisive will let alone outside of God’s Will altogether.” When one realizes this that is what is truly freeing. Being free doesn’t mean you get to believe, do and say whatever you want. Being free is realizing that having all of this under the Lordship of Christ frees us from the dangers of have an “independent/lack of giving God control” type Spirit.
Greg, I DO have a Truth that sets me free. It is the Truth that God is in control and it is freeing to know that I have the confidence that God is omnipotent, omniscient, etc. and that there is a security in knowing that not everything is random as you seem to project.
Also, I mentioned earlier my concern I have for your understanding of the nature of God. We must as Christians realize that Christ was fully God and fully man. Maybe you passed over the “life giving understanding” that you originally had? Maybe the unraveling was not from the Holy Spirit?
With regard to “expelling Believers” didn’t the Apostle Paul address people who happened to have “false doctrine”, “false teachers”, etc.? I’m sure some of them might have been “Believers”. We as Believers must really look at Scripture in light of Scripture.
Also, the fact is not all “innerancy” is the same. The Early church DID believe in innerancy of Scripture. The “MANY” you talk about were the Gnostics who were heretics who had a wrong understanding of the nature of God and followed the concerns laid out in 2 Timothy 3 and 2 Peter 3.
I think your suggestion that my view is “magical”, the statement about “God not interfering with the affairs of men (people)” really concerns me. To me this take away how Christ and the Trinity DOES care about every single detail of us. Even God says “Before the foundation of the world I knew you”, “Before you were in your mothers womb I knew you”, “even the number of your hairs on your head are numbered”. To me your under5standing of God diminishes this strong personality of how God cares about every single detail of us and desires us to be in His perfect will as compered to being permisive will let alone outside of God’s Will altogether.
I personally see more danger in being “lukewarm” against untruth.
With regard to your “battle” concept with fundamentalist Muslims I believe is also flawed for God says “We wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities and powers and rulers of this dark and present evil age.” I believe this shows that my position is not “fundamentalist” in that that definition (before 10 years ago) referred to more of the attitude of how Truth of what the Word of God said as opposed to the Belief itself. It has only been when in the past 10 years that people have projected the term “fundamentalist” to those who believe in innerent Scripture. I believe that is wrong in light of the proper use of the term.
What really concerns me about your position is what I said here: “To me this take away how Christ and the Trinity DOES care about every single detail of us. Even God says “Before the foundation of the world I knew you”, “Before you were in your mothers womb I knew you”, “even the number of your hairs on your head are numbered”. To me your under5standing of God diminishes this strong personality of how God cares about every single detail of us and desires us to be in His perfect will as compered to being permisive will let alone outside of God’s Will altogether.” When one realizes this that is what is truly freeing. Being free doesn’t mean you get to believe, do and say whatever you want. Being free is realizing that having all of this under the Lordship of Christ frees us from the dangers of have an “independent/lack of giving God control” type Spirit.
dh () - October 12, 2007 at 10:06 am
DH, I don’t want to leave this conversation with you imagining certain things about me that are not true. Your expression of concern for my understanding of God is unwarranted. I am quite aware that God knows the hairs on my head. This does not mean he combs my hair though. My complaint with your view is in the details. And you do not want to discuss details in any logical way. You want to quote to me from the very thing that I call into question as your method of logical answer. I told you this manner of logic is circular. You consider the fact that MOST (not merely a small group of radicalized) Muslims believe that the Koran is the "Word of God" also to be insignificant to the discussion. And for me to suggest that this "is" significant seems to insult you rather than open your eyes in any way to the fact that most religious people (including Christians) believe what they believe because they have been told them….not necessarily because they have tested them and found them to be true. Well I have spent 30 years testing the bible and I have found some of it to be not true. Some of it is even wacky when attempting to reconcile it with Christ. And I wondered why and how this could be…since I was told it was inerrant. Well I have come to understand why it is not true finally – - because it is not inerrant and is the work of men no matter how "Inspired" those men might have been. You would be well served to consider what it is you would still believe about God if there was no Bible to form your conclusions about life and God with. This is actually the path I believe Christ intended to set his true church upon. Life by and thru the spirit alone. A closer read of your bible will give you the clues to this fact in the very words of Christ. The whole struggle to retain scriptures of the old testament and even the creation of a good deal of the new was simply an attempt to stop the Spirit from being the ultimate and final authority in the Church. The Jewish establishment could not allow the established insanity that was the picture of God created by the old testament to die. Christianity has been hijacked from the very earliest days of the work of the Spirit in an attempt to keep religion alive as it had been known. What you really find in the New Testament in particular is an attempt by many authors to bring peace to both sides of the issue. But there will be no peace because in some cases it is an attempt to graft the old onto the new. You believe that Gnostics were considered to be heretics in their day simply because you have been taught that they did not understand God correctly. We hear the same thing today about Catholics or Baptists or whoever falls outside the ‘IN" group. Test all things….prove all things. I have done this with regard to the bible and found it to be flawed – - just like me. You seem to have no need for testing and proving because you feel your belief is correct. Or worse still you imagine that you have tested and proved the scriptures to be inerrant. If the latter is truly the case then I hope you will allow me to be a little flippant — as I would say – - live a little longer and get back to me on this – - I think you might reconsider.
Commenting has been permanently disabled. Please use the Contact button above.Greg () - October 12, 2007 at 6:19 pm
