Ξ August 29th, 2007 | → 9 Comments | ∇ Life |
#2 in a series of posts by Steve Jones
"God said it, I believe it and that settles it."
Most of us have seen the bumpersticker. But the saying is far from an idle cliche. Beneath it is a theological root-system that feeds the faith of many thousands.
For most who style themselves "Bible-believing" Christians, the completed Scripture is nothing less than the divine manual. God gave us the book for detailed, infallible direction. It is all-sufficient, addressing every problem we face in life. Every doctrine God wants us to believe is settled forever, laid out plainly for the faithful to receive.
The common view of sola scriptura is based on several statements, each of which is held as axiomatic by conservative Protestant Christians. They are as follows:
1. The Bible was written through supernatural means. God used men to pen these writings, but they are as much God’s own words as men’s.
2. The canonical writings make up one divine book, a "manual" of Christian faith.
3. The Bible is, accordingly, free of error.
4. All questions of belief are to be brought to its pages. That which can be upheld by chapter and verse must be believed by all Christians. That which is contradicted there must be rejected.
5. Its precepts are relevant and binding through all ages. The Bible addresses us in this century as much as it did the primative church.
It is my position that none of the above five statements is entirely true. Each is flawed – far from self-evident. I say this as a serious Christian who believes in God, Christ, and holiness. And I have no fear that holding such a view puts me in danger of embracing damnable error. On the contrary, I would argue that people have embraced the most outrageous of errors while holding fast to the idea of absolute biblical authority. And it can scarcely be affirmed that the old view of the Bible has produced unity of belief. Churches all claiming to believe "nothing but the Bible" hold views so far apart that outsiders might wonder if they hold the same religion.
The Bible is of inestimable worth to the church. There is no dispute about that. But I cannot embrace the five "biblicist" statements mentioned above, for the following reasons:
1. Nowhere do the authors of the Scripture ever indicate that they are writing supernaturally. The prophets, of course, made this claim about their speech (2 Pet. 1:21). But no author ever describes the assumed plenary inspiration of the writings. Peter tells us that men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit, but not that anyone ever wrote in such a manner.
It is not enough to highlight Paul’s declaration to Timothy that the Scriptures are "God-breathed" or "inspired" (2 Tim. 3:16). Paul never defines that term for us. He says nothing of the supernatural process assumed by so many. Besides, the context indicates he was talking about the Old Testament, not the New (see verse 15 – "the Scriptures you have known since infancy…"). The famous proof-text proves nothing about the four Gospels or even Paul’s own writings.
Experience teaches us how something can be God-breathed – that is, produced by God through His providence, enlightenment, wisdom – without being wrought in a directly supernatural way. A teacher gets up to deliver a message on Sunday. It comes with force, relevance. Afterward, members of the congregation comment on how the teaching was "from the Lord", because of its effect on them. But no one views it as matter of special metaphysics. Nor does anyone consider the utterance infallible. It is simply a blessed message, one that uplifts and empowers the hearers, moving them closer to the Sacred.
Why must we regard the Scriptures as an entirely different kind of inspiration than this? Whatever Paul meant by "God-breathed", the context tells us it is a property that makes the Scriptures " profitable for teaching, correcting, rebuking and training in righteousness.." At this point, we stop our inquiry. To delve into metaphysics, based on one expression, is surely a questionable course.
The burden of proof is on those who disagree. Show us one text where Paul or anyone else says anything like, "The Spirit came upon me and I began to write the very words of God." Surely no assertion ever occurs in the Bible. It is devoid of such extravagant claims as inerrancy or all-sufficiency.
Among other things, this means the Bible is not the Word of God in the strictest sense. "Word of God" is used variously in Scripture. In the Old Testament, the law is called the Word of God (see Psalms 119: 113, 144 e.g.). Of course, the Scriptures contain this law and, therefore, contain the Word of God. And so, it is really more accurate to say that God’s Word is in the Bible, than to say that it is the Bible.
The prophets of Judah and Israel also recognized the Word of God as a revelatory principle that came upon them. It moved their inner being, prompting them to speak the divine message to the redeemed community: "The Word of the Lord came to me, saying…"
In the New Testament, Jesus is called the Word of God (Rev. 19:13), for he is the embodiment of the divine will. Most often, the Word of God is the gospel message. The reference in 1 Peter is typical: "… the word of the Lord endures forever. That word is the good news that was preached to you." (1:25)." The earliest Christians equated the Word of God with the glad tidings of Jesus, " not with a collection of "inerrant" writings.
2. The Bible should never be viewed as a single book. It is an anthology, a collection of sacred writings. Far too many Christians speak as if the 66 books descended from heaven attended by angels, smoke, and lightning. Of course, this is far from the case. The early church compiled the books. There was no absolute consensus on which books ought to be elevated above the others. Some rejected Revelation, Hebrews, 2 Peter. The apocalyptic book of Enoch (quoted in the book of Jude) appears in some early canons, though it is absent from our Bible.
The obvious question is, who gave the Church the authority to produce an objective, absolute standard of belief? Certainly Jesus never said anything about a coming edition to the Scriptures, nor did any other Apostolic writer. here evagelical inerrantists find themselves in a conundrum. They reject the notion of "church authority," dismissing it as a Roman Catholic invention that threatens sola scriptura. But they are stuck when it comes to the canon’s formulation. Here they must say that the church did act authoritatively. God must have guided the Church Universal perfectly to make a decision binding on all generations – and He never worked that way again.
There is no doubt that the canon is a valuable thing. It is important for us to know that the books we have today were generally accepted by the majority of early Christians. Thanks to the canon, we know the Gnostic writings, for example, were not regarded as harmonious with the earliest Christian faith.
However, a reading of the New Testament reveals no trace that the authors considered their writings a part of a larger work. You might even say the idea of a 66-book Bible is unbibical.
3. The Bible bears the imperfections of its human authors. Few dogmas of Christianity have caused so much embarrassment as the infallibility of the Bible. The doctrine has become a belief of necessity, running something like this: (a) Christians need an external, objective standard of belief in order to be secure in the faith, (b) the Bible contains the words of Jesus and his early followers, (c) therefore, it is a perfect standard of faith, free of all error.
The doctrine is entirely deductive, not inductive. No one seems to look at the Scriptures first to see if they really are manifestly inerrant before forming this belief. It is not based on a careful examination of the text, but on an assumption: We need a perfect standard, therefore, God must have given us one. Is this at all logical? Who are we to decide what God should give us?
The theory of biblical inerrancy collapses when subjected to critical examination. The Bible contains obvious contradictions in its parallel accounts (such as four resurrection accounts, which are irreconcilable). Within the pages of Scripture are scientific inaccuracies based upon ancient understanding. Yet, no matter how long a list of these we produce, the inerrantist will never accept a single one. Why? Because he knows that, even though it looks like an error, it cannot be. The inerrantist has a foregone conclusion that God must secure a perfect standard.
It is really not necessary to list biblical contradictions and problems here. Most reflective Bible students are painfully aware of them. The difficulties fill volumes of apologetic works, such as Haley’s Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible. Champions of inerrancy have wasted countless hours reconciling difficulties of the most trivial order.
The most damaging feature of inerrancy, however, is the tying of the Christian gospel’s veracity to the perfection of the Bible. If we find one real error in its pages, we hear from preachers, then the entire Christian faith crumbles into ruins. What a precarious faith! No wonder apologists spend so much ink trying to reconcile minutiae – they think the truth of the gospel hinges on whether a hare chews cud or whether the mustard seed is really the smallest of seeds.
4. There is a diversity of theological thought in the Bible. Individual Scripture verses cannot really be the touchstone, the "final court of appeal" for Christian doctrines and practices, because not all authors of Scripture agreed on all details. True, there are grand unifying elements in the Bible’s pages: the divine mission of Jesus, the imperative of love, the fatherhood of God, the fellowship of the Spirit, the need for holiness, the promise of a future life, the death and resurrection of Christ. These themes are far more authoritative than the citation of a single, detached passage. Considering individual verses, there are some differences among Scriptural authors. Paul and James, for example, appear to differ on the mode of justification. The books of Revelation and 1 Corinthians have opposing views on whether Christians should eat meat sacrificed to idols.
5. The Bible, in many ways, reflects the culture and time in which its individual books were written. There is no doubt that the Bible contains lessons and precepts that apply to humanity in all ages. But, was the Bible written for us in modern America as much as for the first century church? The idea, upon examination, turns out to be unconvincing. For example, how can Paul’s personal instructions – bring a cloak and parchments, or to greet certain individuals – be instructions for us? Paul addresses specific problems in specific churches. Those problems, though they may have some parallels in today’s congregations, really don’t address us per se. The specifics simply do not apply. Problems over Jewish exclusiveness, for example, have long passed out of the church at large.
The Bible is a tremendous aid in our spiritual walk. it helps to conform us to the way of Christ. It reveals the earliest Christian teaching, as well as the life and character of Jesus Christ. The church cannot do without the volume of its holiest writings.
But it does not belong in the center of our spiritual lives, a place reserved for God alone. Our first priority should not be "know your Bible", important as this may be. It should ever be love and following after the peaceable Galilean Teacher who graces its pages.
Ξ August 27th, 2007 | → 5 Comments | ∇ Life |
*This is #1 of a series of posts by Steve Jones.
Introduce the topic of universalism and many Christians will point out instantly that it contradicts Holy Scripture. And when one peruses its pages, it may appear so. But one thing is undenialble by anyone whose heart goes out to others: We intuitively hope universalism is true.
The kind-hearted and merciful wish that God might finally bring all humanity into the circle of His grace. If they could, they would decree the redemption of every person on the planet. They would see the ultimate reform of each sinner, were the choice theirs.
And yet, the love, mercy and compassion of such souls falls far below God’s. The span between heaven and earth is the span between our love and His. Man’s mercy falters; God’s mercy "endures forever." (I Chron. 16:34) Man’s love wears thin; God, on the other hand, IS love. (I John 4:8) Man’s compassion extends just so far; God has compassion "over all that He has made." Psalms 145:9)
That being the case, how can we assert that God will save fewer – much, much fewer, in fact – than the infinite mercy of man would save? Does perfect love redeem a smaller company than would imperfect love?
Many, at this point, flee for refuge to the inscrutable ways of God. The Lord’s thoughts are not our thoughts, they remind us. He does not always act according to His creature’s logic. This is true, of course.
But the common rebuttal leaves us with a baffling incongruity. Consider the tendency of humanity: the less godly a man, the narrower his mercy and love. The godlier a man, the broader, the more liberal his. Then consider God, the one whose character the godly emulate. Inexplicably, when love and mercy reach the zenith of perfection, the trend appears to reverse itself. The scope of redemptive mercy constricts. Most of His creatures cease being objects of mercy and become objects of wrath instead.
Isn’t there something wrong with this theological picture? Flawed mercy would rescue all. impeccable mercy will not. In light of such an enigma, we can’t help but ask: could it be that the larger portion of the Christian tradition has missed the mark on this subject?
Some will argue that although God wishes to restore all people, He wil not violate our free will. How this free will becomes so invincible, so able to wear down omnipotence, remains to be explained. And why God’s action against it would be a "violation" – as if He is subject to a higher law than Himself. – is also unanswerable.
God is able to remove the heart of stone and replace it with a heart of flesh. He can work in us to will and to do according to His good pleasure. what human father would hesitate to "violate" the free will of a son who suddenly chooses to dash toward traffic? God is the parent of us all. (Mal. 2:10) We are His offspring. (Acts 17:28) Would He then not do everything in His power – a power that knows no bounds – to lead us away from ultimate destruction?
There is something intuitive about our desire to expand redemption beyond orthodox boundaries. This is significant. In the first chapter of Romans, Paul expresses a belief that all humans have a law written on the heart. They have an inner monitor that informs them of such concepts as love, mercy, equity. Could it be that this principle is at war with the words of theologians and preachers? Might this explain the unrest of so many?
At this point, many will object. Rightly so, they will tell us that an ardent desire for something doesn’t make it true. The Church, they insist, must always be guided by Scripture only.
But there is one example of a doctrine that Christians have embraced on the basis of intuition , not the Bible. It’s the belief that all who die in infancy are saved. The near unanimous voice of the Church has shouted down centuries of belief in infant damnation. And this without a line of Scripture. The basis is our inner conviction. The concept of babies in hell is abhorrent to our sensibilities. The Church has, accordingly, applied universal redemption to those dying below "the age of accountability."
There is also an inward pressure to make allowances for the heathen. The shrinking of our world has brought us into contact with people outside the Christian realm, making it more difficult than ever to sustain the old view. So unpalatable is the thought of entire cultures and civilizations perishing that even evangelicals are looking for ways to get around it. There is considerable talk about how God can regenerate a pagan who "lives up to the light he has." It may be a matter of time before a new notion of heathen salvation joins infant salvation as an intuitive doctrine of the heart.
The extent of redemption merits rethinking by the Church. Its implications are too great for us to glibly underline a proof text and proclaim certainty. We should grapple with this, think out its consequences with a searching heart and mind.
After undertaking such a work, many may find the old view vindicated. That is fine – it may, in fact, be true. Let everyone be persuaded in his or her own mind. But, hopefully, the traditionalists’ studies will bring them closer to explaining the perplexities that pile up when we look at existence from their perspective.
Ξ August 27th, 2007 | → 0 Comments | ∇ Life |
One of the most influential people in the blogworld on my journey these last three years has been Steve Jones. Steve’s blogs "Freethinking Faith" and "Dogma-free Theology" played a major role in shaping my thinking as I ventured into unknown territory. I thought so much of Steve’s ideas, via his posts, that I printed off every one of them from both blogs. I will admit that back in 2005, I didn’t "get" a lot of what Steve was saying, but knew there was something there I needed to keep for the future. Recently, I pulled out the notebook in which I placed his posts. I am in the process of re-reading them all. It is amazing how much more I am grasping of the content of the posts now! I am still not exactly where Steve is theologically, but am so impressed by his grasp of modern Christianity and the "basic" doctrines ascribed to by mainline churches.
I have decided to revisit many of his posts by placing them here on my blog. I am presenting these posts as points for "civil" discussions of their contents. I will not attempt to make my own comments, unless I feel it is necessary. Posting of these posts are not an indication of my own support, belief in, or adherence to any stated propositions. However, Steve presents his point of view so well, I feel they need to be cited once more. I think I can safely say that Steve is not attempting to win anyone over to a particular side or point of view, but is simply presenting his own idea on a subject.
I sincerely hope Steve will return to blogging in the near future. I miss his insightful comments.
In the coming weeks, look for postings of Steve’s ideas here. I welcome and encourage your comments. Let’s keep in mind what I heard said by Chris Ledgerwood in a comment. "It’s cool that it’s (the controversial subject) being discussed with kindness and dignity". Let’s keep things on a higher plane.
*to Steve: Let me know what you think of this idea if you read this. Otherwise, I will assume you have no objections to me re-visiting your ideas.
Ξ August 21st, 2007 | → 6 Comments | ∇ Life |
The following is Verse 76 of the Tao Te Ching. Do the last two lines sound like familiar NT verses from Jesus?
A man is born gentle and weak.
At his death he is hard and stiff.
Green plants are tender and filled with sap.
At their death they are withered and dry.
Therefore the stiff and unbending is the disciple of death.
The gentle and yielding is the disciple of life.
Thus an army without flexibility never wins a battle.
A tree that is unbending is easily broken.
The hard and strong will fall.
The soft and weak will overcome.
The entire verse has a lot to say to us today. Lines 6-7 remind me of our unbending brothers in Christianity who feel that they have the only "truth" and refuse to be open to anything new or different.
Ξ August 17th, 2007 | → 1 Comments | ∇ Life |
Robert Jeffress, Pastor of 1st Baptist Church of Wichita Falls, Texas, has been "called" to the pulpit of one of the largest, if not the largest Baptist church in the US, 1st Baptist Church of Dallas, Texas. If your wondering why I care, read my July17 post.
Ξ August 17th, 2007 | → 0 Comments | ∇ Life |
As I cruise around the blogs, I repeatedly see that the "hot" issues, which draw more comments, seem to deal with the future and it’s implications. If the truth be told, the bulk of religious belief is really about earthly life and not about things in the future, worlds beyond our death. Am I correct or not? Religious beliefs are forged in response to the pressing "big questions" of life: Who Am I? Who are we? Where did we come from? Why are we here? Where are we going? Unfortunately, over the centuries, these questions became encrusted in doctrinal formulas devoid of obvious this-world implications, they got lost.
Take Biblical fundamentalism, which is usually taken to be a religion that relies on a literal reading of the Bible and belief that the Bible contains the answers to all life’s questions. In all its forms, fundamentalism looks to the past. It puts faith in a formulated teaching that was given as if once and for all, complete and finished. It supposes that it already has a hold on the truth, so nothing else is needed. It looks back and says, "This is it. All the answers are already spelled out here." How does the Holy Spirit fit into all this. I thought "He" was sent to comfort us after Jesus had gone. Biblical Fundamentalism invokes the Holy Spirit to claim divine authority for its selective reading of the biblical text. That, IMHO, actually negates the work of the Holy Spirit. Appeals such as that use the Holy Spirit to reestablish the status quo. Supposedly, the Holy Spirit "leads" one to say "Jesus is Lord". That’s fine. Yet, when you do, you’re right back to Jesus Christ in the past. Right back into the Book taken literally. Right back into the narrow confines of a religion of guilt. Right back into the letter that kills. Paul wrote in 2 Cor. , 3:6, " the Spirit gives life." Christianity without the touch of the Spirit takes us back to then and there and leaves no room for here and now. Christian belief says that the Spirit within each and every one of us, all of us, helps us to realize "WWJD". Sorry, couldn’t resist…After all, not even Jesus experienced the life you and I are living. It’s the Spirit that lets us know what Jesus would think and do if He were alive today. It is the Spirit that enables us to validate goodness in whatever form it takes.
Following Jesus, but without being in touch with the Spirit, we would be locked into a first-century Palestinian world. Jesus never had to deal with genetic engineering, stem-cell research. He never encountered an emancipated woman. He never commmented on the global economy or downsizing a corporation or the ethics of advertising. He expressed no opinion about air or water pollution. He never used email or surfed the Net.
If we limit ourselves to what Jesus did and said, what’s written in the Bible, or what the church has already taught, we lose all forward movement. We lose the freshness. WE LOSE CONTACT WITH LIFE! In losing contact with life, we lose contact with the Holy Spirit, for it gives life. Losing contact with the Holy Spirit, we lose touch with GOD.
So, perhaps there are some other issues for us to discuss out here in the cyberworld of blogs. Issues which don’t involve DOGMA, DOCTRINE, CREEDS, which always seem to lead to disaffection, short tempers, labeling and the like. The "other"issues involve us in a practical way. Being willing to discuss these "other" issues implies, since the Spirit is in each of us, belief in ourselves. Why? It means accepting and effectively using our wondrous humanity, which God created. it means trusting the God-given intelligence of our minds and relying on the Spirit-inspired goodness in our hearts. It means working out for ourselves in collabortation with one another a way to live lovingly and justly in our world just as Jesus did in his.
*source of ideas for this post- "The Transcended Christian", by Daniel Helminiak
Ξ August 13th, 2007 | → 1 Comments | ∇ Life |
How can a man’s life keep its course
If he will not let it flow?
Those who flow as life flows know
They need no other force:
They feel no wear, they feel no tear,
They need no mending, no repair.
Witter Bynner, 1944
Slow down and live an unhurried life. It is not necessary for you to actively direct every little part and aspect of your life.
Ξ August 8th, 2007 | → 2 Comments | ∇ Life |
I can hardly believe that I have been on this journey in search of life for nearly 3 years. Back in 2004 when I asked God to show me truth, I never dreamed He would take me to the places I have been. The journey is far from over. In fact, I’ll be traveling that journey until I leave this body and earth. I had known in my spirit that what I had believed for so many years just didn’t make sense in many areas, especially those dealing with the nature of God and His message to man (the Bible). That was the beginning of the journey. But, new directions and new roads began to appear as I traveled. All of which have given me a deeper understanding of God and my; our relationship with Him. One of the most fascinating things I have learned is that there are many paths to the same God. I know, HERESY!! But I truly believe that humans all over our globe have had encounters with God and have interpreted them in many different ways. One thing of many which God has shown me is truth is truth, no matter where it comes from. It is so interesting that most of the sacred texts of the world’s religions have many parallel ideas. Many of them express the same truth.
This brings me to an unusual encounter I had recently. I had purchased Dr. Wayne Dyer’s latest book, "Change Your Thoughts, Change Your Life", which is a commentary on the ancient Chinese book of wisdom,"The Tao Te Ching". I have read the Tao recently and wanted Dr. Dyer’s perspective on it. I often read on my lunch hour at work and had carried Dr. Dyer’s book with me to the reception desk to sign out for lunch. There, one of the receptionists, a senior citizen about my own age, slipped the book out of my hand and asked what I was reading. She flipped through several pages and asked me what the Tao Te Ching was. I told her it was an ancient Chinese book of wisdom. She quickly returned it to me, saying that she’d just stick with the Bible. I asked if she’d ever read it, knowing the answer already. She said, "no". I asked if she’d ever read Ecclesiates, chapter 3. She assured me that she was certain she had at some time or another. I paraphrased as much as I could of the familiar verses:
| For everything there is a season, and a time for every purpose under heaven: |
| A time to be born, And a time to die; A time to plant, And a time to pluck up that which is planted; |
| A time to kill, And a time to heal; A time to break down, And a time to build up; |
| A time to weep, And a time to laugh; A time to mourn, And a time to dance; |
| A time to cast away stones, And a time to gather stones together; A time to embrace, And a time to refrain from embracing; |
| A time to seek, And a time to lose; A time to keep, And a time to cast away; |
| A time to tear, And a time to sew; A time to keep silence, And a time to speak; |
| A time to love, And a time to hate; A time for war, And a time for peace |
She, of course, recognized the verses. Then I asked her to read the 29th Verse of the Tao Te Ching, which in part says:
there is a time for being ahead
and a time for being behind;
a time for being in motion
and a time for being at rest;
a time for being vigorous
and a time for being exhausted;
a time for being safe
and a time for being in danger.
The similarities did not escape her. As she handed back my book, I told her that the Tao Te Ching was written approximately 250 years before Ecclesiates. I ended our conversation with, "Truth is truth wherever we find it". I really believe that. I have seen too many examples of that statement as I have made my way along the journey.
Ξ August 8th, 2007 | → 1 Comments | ∇ Life |
"Remind yourself daily that there is no way to happiness; rather, happiness is the way.You may have a long list of goals that you believe will provide you with contentment (happiness) when they’re achieved, yet if you examine your state of happiness in this moment, you’ll notice that the fulfillment of some previous ambition didn’t create an enduring sense of joy. Desires can produce anxiety, stress, and competitiveness, and you need to recognize those that do. Bring happiness to every encounter in life, instead of expecting external events to produce joy or happiness. Your life is controlled by something far bigger and more significant than the petty details of your lofty aspirations."
-Change Your Thoughts, Change Your Life-
Dr. Wayne Dyer
Ξ August 6th, 2007 | → 5 Comments | ∇ Life |
Although Chappy and I missed the Grace Gathering, we had our own mini version. Chappy’s eldest son, Jared, was here for a visit during his birthday week (Happy Birthday Jared). He has only recently been introduced to this wonderful Gospel of Grace. We met for lunch on Friday and a lengthy session on Sunday at McChurch (McDonald’s). We had a wonderful time with lots of lively discussions. He’s really an intelligent, great young man who is very receptive to this wonderful gospel!
Good to hear that everyone enjoyed the "gathering". I looked at the pictures and look forward to listening to much of it. Thanks to George, Cliff, and Bruce for making the sessions available. Maybe the next one can be down our way, since Mike’s church is only about 2 miles from my wife’s home in Spring, Tx.
Next Page »
Stumble it!
