I'm one of those crazy liberals who thinks that women should be elders in the church. However, after reading this recent confessional from Eileen Button, a Pastor's wife in Michigan, I've decided that women should be pastors. And if Ms. Button ever starts a church in DC, I'll attend.
Here Eileen discusses the stereotypes associated with being a pastor's wife:
For those who suppose they have me pegged, I'd like to dispel a few stereotypes. I don't believe Jesus would be a Republican or a Democrat. I am suspicious of our presence in Iraq and mourn the loss of lives there. I applaud those who may not be churchgoers but whose actions and generosity reflect Christ more than the lifestyles of many professing Christians. I believe God wants for us to prosper, but not necessarily in the way our American culture dictates, and certainly not just for personal benefit.
By the way, I don't wear stockings, pumps or flowered dresses with lace collars. Nor do I don Tammy Faye-style false eyelashes, wigs or sequins. I prefer jeans, khakis and classic T shirts. I don't volunteer in the nursery or children's church (I've had three children of my own; that was more than enough). I don't perform with the music team. With a voice like mine, no one will let me on, and the only song I know how to play on the piano is "Chopsticks."
However, I try to use the gifts I have been given in the church and community as a teacher, writer and friend.
This is the kind of honesty I would like to see from all Pastors. I know Pastors are not perfect, and it would be great if they would stop acting like it.
I wouldn’t call gender equality a “crazy liberal” idea, but rather a biblical idea since some of Jesus disciples were women.
Women leaders in archaic conservative churches often find some creative way around the gender barrier whether it be in the role of the pastor’s wife, music leaders, youth leader, etc. As a kid at a small conservative church in the early 1980s, I saw a pastor’s wife take the role of the de facto pastor. I’m sure the church’s board got more than they bargained for when they hired this demur man who gave uninspiring Sunday sermons while his wife led the service and gave orders during the rest of the week.
****
Of course, I doubt Jesus would be hired by any churches today. After all, what church today would hire an unmarried, degree-less, carpenter’s son?
Good point –I love the qualification insight.
I think that if we are talking about church leadership, we whould stick with what the Bible says about the subject. Community standards shouldn’t be held above biblical truth. Men and women are created equal but have different roles. The roles do not denote value before God, man of course makes this mistake a lot. I was impressed with the article about Eileen and I thought she had a great attitude however, I hardly see how that qualifies her for eldership. Please reference 1 Timothy 3:1-3 (English Standard Version)
1The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. 2Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.
Norm! what do you mean when you say gender equality? Is there a reference to women being disciples? There is reference to them being with the disciples but not actually disciples and certainly not among the 12. I think that it would be a mistake to try to fit our present culture’s feminist social morals into scripture. I believe that there is much more freedom for everyone when we make an effort to live a life that formed from the word of God and not someone’s opinion of what the word of God says. Sure there have been abuses, as illustrated by Norm’s story of the pastor’s wife but, that doesn’t make it right.
“I believe that there is much more freedom for everyone when we make an effort to live a life that formed from the word of God and not someone’s opinion of what the word of God says.”
Huh? Somewhere you have the word of God and it’s not someone’s opinion of what the word of God says?
One of the great contradictions of scripture … how can Paul write “there is neither male nor female …” and Jesus say “the flesh counts for nothing” (John 6:63) … clearly IN THE SPIRIT there is no difference, and so the person who sees difference between men and women in terms of serving Christ is looking at the flesh … where we are told to live by the spirit, and that it is living by the spirit and by faith that pleases the Father, why do we default to the fleshly judgment when dealing with the gender issue?
Jesus even said “who are my mother and brothers? … those who do the Father’s will”. So Jesus set a standard of gender equality where matters of serving the Father and living by the Spirit are concerned …
Is there any difference between a man and a woman other than flesh and bone? If the answer is no, and like Jesus said “the flesh counts for nothing”, then I don’t see why women can’t serve in any capacity as the Father see’s fit.
John444,
None of the scriptures you quote have anything to do with leadership, which is clearly described in Genesis and Pauline literature. You are taking scripture out of context, trying to bend it to some cultural interpretation where it doesn’t apply. There is no difference in the spirit however, there is a clearly defined difference in roles.
[Comment ID #13435 Will Be Quoted Here]
I agree!!! But what do you mean by “contradiction”?
Did you ever consider that the role of women as defined in Genesis, has to do with the fall, and not what God intended originally? When the Lord said to the woman “your desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you” it was post-fall. Pre-fall woman was made to be man’s comanion (it is not good for man to be alone) and his help-mate. God took from man’s side to make someone who would walk beside him – an equal. He did not take from man’s back that she would walk 6 paces behind him, nor his foot that he should be above her.
I must apologize for the gas I’m certain it will cause you, but I see nothing in the words of Jesus that sets up the kind of male female division that Paul establishes. It was Paul, not Jesus who established the so-called 5 fold ministry, etc. It was Paul, not Jesus who established the rule for women being silent in the assembly.
Personally, I think Jesus appearing first to Mary in the garden after his resurrection, had to do with the restoration of women to their God given role beside men and not ruled over by men. Looking back to the garden after the fall, woman was the ‘first cursed (disciplined)’ and apparently the first restored.
As a man, I believe I am given a choice – to treat my wife as if she still under that genesis curse, or, treat her as one who is IN Christ, filled with the same Spirit I am, and my equal. You see, I don’t see Jesus establishing any heirarchical roles in ‘church government’, rather, I see Him teaching us to aspire to SONship.
I think a lot of what Paul established as ‘church rules’ had to do with cultural / social problems. And I also think Paul would role over in his grave if we woke Him up and told him we folded his letters into a book, called it ‘holy’ and the ‘word of God’. In fact, having been in the presence of the Father now for millenia, I doubt Paul would even recognize his letters.
Yes, I’m a heretic. But I’m also the husband of a happy wife.
I’m 51 Cowboy and subject to the occasional senior moment.
I see at least 2 contradictions; 1 between what Jesus said (“the flesh counts for nothing” and “who are my mother and brothers…”), AND the teachings of Paul which clearly show a gender bias. The 2nd contradiction is between Paul (Galatians?) and Paul Timothy 3 – where in the former he says “there is neither male nor female” but writes in the latter that ministry is limited to men (not to mention the whole “women silent in the assembly” thing).
Note that I am not ‘bible school’ or seminary trained – just a seeker. I have this feeling / understanding deep down that there are perhaps levels of truth, where Jesus taught us from the highest truth – to aspire us to sonship. Jesus selected his disciples and as seen in John 6, saw his flock culled / pared down to a small handful of faithful followers. Paul on the other hand, took the message to gentiles practicing idol worship and dealt with so-called temple-shrine prostitutes. Jesus dealt with Jews who were already familiar with and observed Torah law; Paul dealt with the ceremonially unclean. And so I think Paul came up with rules and tools to deal with the people he was sent to – who were carnal, and less mature, than the handful of followers that remained with Jesus throughout His earthly ministry.
It doesn’t mean Paul was wrong, or a chauvinist, etc., rather he made flesh-based rules to deal with flesh based behavior until such time as people aspired to the higher spriitual truth (meat).
One of the things that makes me think that Cowboy, is something Jesus said about the law – He said “these you have kept, but you have ignored the more important elements of the law, justice mercy and faithfulness …” … I remember the first time “mercy” caught my eye there as I had never considered mercy an element of the law as far as men dealing with men were concerned … the prevailing attitude of the Jews at the time seemed to be IF you were caught committing a capital sin you were stoned – there was no mercy. But we saw Jesus show mercy with the woman who committed adultery … looking back at the OT – we see Moses standing in the gap, David offering himself up for the Lord to stop the plague, Joseph quietly sending Mary away … each could have hid behind the law and cheered the stoning, but instead, each inserted himself between God and sinner to show mercy. So there was a choice of turning a blind eye to ones own sin and stoning a fellow sinner, or, one could intervene and see mercy. Sometimes I think the Father’s greatest mercy is shown when we aspire to that Jesus-like Sonship and show mercy / forgiveness ourselves. It’s as if God gave us the law to cover us when we judge each other and act out of the flesh, but also to wear us out and drive us to search for something better – the way of love, mercy and the Spirit.
Both are truth, one is just better. Thanks for listneing to my rambling.
–Why didn’t God form Eve out of the dust of the earth just like He did man?
–Why did He take a portion out of man to make a help-meet ‘suitable’ for him?
–Why do you think Satan went after the ‘weaker vessel’ to trip up humanity?
–Why didn’t Jesus pick any women as His 12 disciples?
–After Judas committed suicide, why didn’t the other disciples pick a female to replace him?
–Why didn’t Paul instruct Timothy to tell the older women to teach the younger women to DOMINATE those husbands? To let the world raise their children? NOT to bother keeping their home? To NOT let those husbands boss them around?
–Why did Paul say that he who desires to be an elder must be the husband of one wife?
Which other cultural suggestions can we leave out in the many verses that deal with a woman’s role in the church and in the marriage?
How about husbands loving their wives as Christ loved the Church, giving Himself up for it?
How about husbands nourishing and cherishing their wives just as the Lord does the church?
Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter towards them?
Husbands, dwell with your wives with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life…?
Shall we toss out these archaic and cultural references to the role of the husband, placed conveniently right alongside the role of the wife?
How presumptious to tell God He didn’t get it right when He ordained the authority structure in the church and in marriage. Thanks to this ‘twisting of scriptures to our own destruction’, humanity is fast becoming a backward culture of effeminate, spiritually lazy men shrinking back from ‘masculine’, dominating women that have abandoned their glorious, feminine, God–given design, and, ironically, STILL aren’t happy with their lot in life….
A woman who is fulfilling her role as a proper ‘help-meet’ to her husband is the one who may have the greater honor. Didn’t Jesus say to the disciples, “If anyone desires to be great among you, let him be your servant, and whoever wants to be first, let him be your slave”? Yet we grasp and claw for the ‘upper hand’….physically, intellectually, emotionally, spiritually, then wonder why life at the ‘top’ is so empty and ‘lonely’….God didn’t make a ‘help–meet’ for women…
I think that you are on dangerous ground when you start say that some scripture is more inspired than others. Must cults start with the attitude that they have the “deeper Truth” that no one else has seen.
There is no apparent contradiction, only an effort to try to make two non-related portions of scripture say something that just isn’t there. You need more context and much more back up than just your feelings. Be careful that you don’t try to bend scripture around our current social morals in an effort to justify something that just can not be proved biblically, i.e.; women elders and pastors.
Don’t say I didn’t warn ya about gas …
Do you get the drift at all what I said about God telling us one thing (stone the adulterer), yet desiring of us mercy toward one another?
How often we have said as a church that Jesus lived in accordance with OT law, yet among the things He taught by exmple (not a narrative/parable), was an order of precedence within the law. For example, keeping the sabbath, but what person who owned an animal would not fetch it from a ditch on the sabbath to save its life? Likewise, saving the life of a man (delivering him) on the sabbath? In so doing, Jesus demonstrated an order of precedence / importance in the law. In saving an animal or man on the Sabbath, Jesus demonstrated that the law of mercy (compassion, love, whatever you want to call it) was more important than the law of the sabbath.
In so doing, Jesus taught his followers to “use their heads”, not hide behind the law while others suffer. Such would be a selfish use of the law, where Jesus is clearly looking for selflessness – as in I’d rather transgress this law (of the sabbath) to save my brother, than let him perish.
Joey and Hungry, you take issue with what I say about women, that I believe Paul was addressing local / historical problems within the cultures to which he was sent – teachings of Paul that you apparently adhere to and express alarm that I don’t … that same Paul who promoted men only in leadership also said women are to be silent in the assembly and must cover their heads.
So tell me Joey and Hungry, do you make your women-folk observe silence in the assembly and wear head coverings? Hungry on the Harbor, you go to CLF which has a woman pastor or three, don’t you? Yup – just checked. In accordance with your strict intepretation of “Genesis and Pauline” teachings, CLF needs to demote and silence 3 of their pastors. Boy, the HR person at CLF is going to be really busy firing the women, interviewing honest monogomous men (if any can be found) … poor Cheryl Gebhart, Amy Moyer, Fran Marzioli – it’s back to barefoot and preggers for you!
OK – I’m done poking fun at ya – I’ll be serious now – promise – what kind of logic system do you two employ, that lets you ignore one portion of ‘Pauline’ teachings (sorry, I just think it’s funny to call him Pauline) but embrace others? You warn me of selectively embracing scripture, or discounting one scripture over another … when apparently you are doing the same? I’m just curious what logic you are using, and how that differs from my logic about which you seem so alarmed?
Wow, are we arguing about this again?
‘willfully’ blind….polluted by the ‘acceptable norm’ of society, afraid to believe and follow scripture in the uncomfortable, challenging areas…since when does God operate on a democratic platform, making sure He doesn’t offend the PC masses or hurt anyones feelings??
…take it up with the Lord Jesus, Who, BTW, ‘lowered’ Himself to the form of a servant–seeking, ministering, healing, feeding, washing dusty feet, bleeding on a cross…didn’t seem to think a ‘subservient’ role was beneath Him….amazing love….how can it be, that my King would die for me….
You didn’t answer my question, Hungry.
Do you make your women remain silent with heads covered at CLF? Are you going to fire your women pastors, demote your women elders, et al, in accordance with Pauline (that name kills me) teaching?
How does the logic system behind your personal approach or corporate approach of CLF to women in ministry (leadership) differ from mine?
FICM – apparently so.
John444,
Where is your scriptural basis for women in leadership? Not your opinion or feeling about it, but rathr where is it stated clearly that women can be elders or pastors (shepards)? Lets stay on topic here.
I do not need to answer your questions or defend myself with smokescreens and endless circular arguments. Your questions are best directed to the One who authored the difficult passages so often twisted to fit our itching ears instead of believed to our benefit and blessing….
I am confident and comfortable just simply believing His word, not expecting to be treated any better because of it than my Lord Jesus was treated when He graced this earth with His glorious but challenging presence.
I can peacefully co-exhist in a body where all members are not perfect clones of my beliefs, yet I should be free to share my own beliefs without fear of being condescended to, wouldn’t you say? I’m pretty sure that is what this blog is all about….:o).
Chicken.
I don’t think Jesus ever did that….:o)
You guys are funny. Does this all matter in the whole scheme of things?
If a woman wants to be called a pastor and scream from the platform at church services, let her. If people wanna sit and listen to her screech, let them. I won’t be there.
Remember when CBC was big on Cindy Jacobs… she was a screecher… had strange ideas on things too….
Joey, how about Deborah for a Biblical example? Would you consider judging all of the Israelites to be a leadership position?
It really telling to me that you and Hungry have both lashed out at John for being unbiblical and reinterpreting Scripture, yet you won’t explain your thoughts on women being silent in church with their heads covered. That’s part of the “Pauline” teachings on women in church, so do we need to be following all of Paul’s instructions or not?
I’ll answer about women being silent, when and if I can get a straight scriptural answer about women in leadership.
I thought someone would eventually mention Deborah in attempt “to apply an exception to the rule” smoke screen. There will always be a woman ready to take the reins when men are to weak and passive to lead. I think you guys need to look through all of scripture and look at what it says through out and not take one instance to try an invalidate my argument.
How is Deborah a smokescreen? You can’t ask for Biblical examples if you’re going to dismiss them out of hand because they don’t fit with your argument. If God saw fit to elevate one woman to a leadership role, who are we to say there can’t be any modern day Deborahs? You’re going to have to provide some Scriptual backing to justify your dismissal of my example.
I’d chime in but I’m remaining silent. And besides I can’t see the monitor screen with this covering-thingy on my head anyway!
It would be nice if we could successfully twist the scriptures to fit our personal world view (isn’t what Frank D. is accused of doing?). The reality is we need to be careful that our world view conforms to the word of God. The Bible doesn’t say women can’t lead, it just says they shouldn’t be leading men. Men need to step up to the plate and lead in the church and in their own homes and fill those leadership “gaps”. Churches need to stop expecting free labor from women in exchange for a leadership title (like that episode of Cheers when Woody goes to ask Rebecca for a raise and instead gets promoted to “Chief Assistant Bartender”, but comes out feeling like that was better than any raise).
Allowing feminism to creep into doctrine does not open up better opportunities for women, it opens up more opportunities to abuse and take advantage of them by using their talents for the advancement of the church instead of in their home homes. I am woman, hear me roar.
Fezzik,
One example does not make a trend. The point is that God has consistently chosen for the men to lead.
John444,
Still looking?
Except when he chose a woman. I understand your point, but I think you’re making an absolute statement without justification. My point is women shouldn’t be absolutely shut out from leadership.
Also, you asked for an example, not a trend.
So how about that head covering and being silent in church? I’m honestly curious to hear your take on that passage given your other viewpoints.
Fezzik,
Just spent 3 hours with a snow blower clearing my drive and my elderly neighbors so he can get out to dialysis tomorrow. We got 3-4 foot drifts and average 16″ depth back here in the Illinois River valley over night … now enjoying some hot chocolate with peppermint schnapps … Mmmmm …
Hungry,
Re: name calling – I was just looking to invoke the ‘Marty McFly’ response from you’s guys. Here’s the way I see it – scripture tells us “come, let us REASON together” … to me, that means to meditate on scripture, let the whole of it work trough our being, and let the Holy Spirit shine light in areas we may not have considered before – how often have we come upon new revalation (individually and corporately) from simply considering the whole counsel of scripture together with the Holy Spirit in our midst? By “higher truth”, I don’t mean anything extra biblical, rather, I mean those wonderful revelations which come from the Spirit through meditation, life application of the word, etc. Too many believers are literalists and never get past the face value of scripture. There’s so much more there IF we will let our religious guard down for a minute and let the Spirit teach us and open our eyes to new facits / applications of what is already there.
I have stated rather matter of factly what I have reasoned out, not by myself, but with many of my brothers and sisters in the Lord. And I’ve been vulnerable / open enough to put what I think (emphasis on “I”) in print. I really haven’t heard from you Hungry or Joey what YOU (emphasis on “YOU”) think so much as I’ve just heard you parrot scripture. I’d really like to hear what YOU think about apparent scriptural contradictions; and how your particular assembly (presumably CLF) turns a blind eye to those scriptures I mentioned about women. You see, even IF you believe differently than CLF practices (for the sake of argument let’s assume you both are die-hard fundy literalists) you STILL agree with CLF’s UNbiblical approach to installing women in leadership roles by virtue of your attendence/membership and financial support of CLF. That’s called tacit approval or agreement – or implied – can’t remember – Cowboy will correct my grammar if needed
So my request to you both, since you are taking issue with what I have expressed and why, is that you quit hiding behind “the Bible says” (hence: my calling you chicken) and tell us what the difference is between ignoring Paul’s teachings about women being silent and covered in the assembly, and my ignoring Paul’s teaching about women only in leadership? Do you not arrive at your application of scripture through social/cultural compromise? Or is it just your flesh rebelling (Paul’s a chauvinist pig and I’m NOT going to wear a hat or shutup)? Or have you arrived at a scriptural basis for ignoring Paul? You either agree with the practice personally, or corporately by belonging to an institution that ignores those scriptures.
While out throwing snow, I did consider a few things that acknowledge women in leadership …
The 5-fold for example identifies leadership functions – some say “offices” – but I’m more incined to call them gifts. Apostle, Prophet, Evangelist, Pastor, Teacher … so if we find any women in scripture operating in any of those capacities, they are in fact “leaders” in the church, right?
Any women prophets in the Bible? Yes. Teachers? Yes.
Another thought occurs; why did the writers of scripture quote the words of many women through out Biblical history, who through scripture TEACH US down through the ages, but in live assembly, we silence them? Is what a woman has to say in/to the assembly only valid when she’s quoted by a man?
Scriptural basis? How many times does Paul have to acknowledge women in his letters for you to see / recognize that they were leaders in their respective churches? Priscilla was the teacher of Apollos, who already had proven himself as a scholar before he met her. Mary sister of Martha and Lazarus studied at Jesus feet; women financed Jesus; Mary mother of Jesus presumably taught him; etc. There’s plenty of examples in scripture IF you want to see them.
As for the whole “submit to one another” thing, note that Ephesians 5:21 precedes the marriage passage and does not limit submission by gender. Becoming least of ALL and servant of ALL does NOT say anything about being limited to men only.
Anyway – if your answer is “the Bible says”, please don’t bother replying; I’m looking to find out what YOU think persuant to “reasoning together”. If all you can do is say “the Bible says”, well, I can read that for myself.
This will be my last thoughts on this since a biblical answer is apparently too much to ask.
1. ” ..Come let us reason together..” Refers to Isaiah 1:17-19 Where the lord is talking to Isaiah, not lets reason together about what scripture says. Please use scripture in context.
17 “learn to do right!
Seek justice,
encourage the oppressed. [a]
Defend the cause of the fatherless,
plead the case of the widow.
18 “Come now, let us reason together,”
says the LORD.
“Though your sins are like scarlet,
they shall be as white as snow;
though they are red as crimson,
they shall be like wool.
19 If you are willing and obedient,
you will eat the best from the land;”
2. If we are followers of God, then shouldn’t his word be foremost in our lives and not how impressed we are with our own reasoning? Our foundation must built of something absolute. Man is neither infinite or absolute.
3. I just asked for a simple answer to what I thought was a clever and interesting rebate and all I get are rambling diatribes.
4. I’m done with this thread, good night.
You forgot “Enjoy hell” (see The 5 Stages that make this worthwhile thread).
My answer is–’the Bible says’…..I’m quite comfortable with that, I’m sorry you’re not….:o)
I, personally, don’t speak in the church.
If you follow Paul’s exhortation on head covering to the full end, you will find him saying. (er…”the Bible says”…:o) “Nevertheless, we have no such custom….” It is not a requirement of the Gentile women to cover their head in order to have fellowship with the saints. There were only four absolutes for the Gentile converts to follow; no eating meat offered to idols, no blood, no strangles, and no sexual immorality…those were the very basic requirements laid out by the church. None of those requirements are a personal challenge for me, and fellowship in my church doesn’t require that I am clones of them, either.
As far as my personal views regarding difficult passages, I have enough faith in God and His word (‘the Bible says’ again…:o), and trust that He is smart enough (That ‘omniscient’ thing..:o) to be able to write a book that is simple enough for me to understand both how to have fellowship with Him, and how He expects His child to behave. With the help of His Spirit, which Jesus promised He would send to help me, guide me, and remind me of what He said, I can stumble through working out my salvation with fear and trembling. (“The Bible says, again
) He wants us to have fellowship with Him, and wouldn’t make knowing Him so difficult that the “not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble” (OOPS! there’s that Bible again…) man gives up or miss it entirely. I can take things at ‘face value’ and simply obey without looking for legal loopholes and exceptions to the rules…
What about the rest of us?
Putting aside John444′s points for the moment. I am also curious.
Here’s my homeschool background:
Women had to wear dresses. Mostly home made jean jumpers.
Many women, and girls, would wear white lace caps pinned to their heads.
Men were taught to lead, women were taught to cook and submit.
Hungry, or Joey, or anyone else: in all seriousness do you, or your sig. other, wear a headcovering? If so, how do you make that work? If not, why not?
Also I’m wondering: Do you attend a church that requires it? If so, approx. what percentage comply? If not why not?
I’d love to hear your perspective.
Thanks
Interesting scripture that precedes “come let us reason together” … mentions the oppressed (um, you mean, like women who have been systematically gagged?!?), widows, orphans … clearly the context is compassion for and right treatment of people … so reasoning together within context DOES have to do with how people are treated and provided for.
And the exortation to “learn to do right”? That implies that the hearer / reader is doing it wrong? Why say “learn to do right” unless the reader is being unjust, oppressing people, failing to meet the needs of widows, orphans, and needs to be corrected?
“Come let us reason together” has EVERYTHING to do with giving consideration to how we treat people.
Ya gotta love them fundy literalists.
Sorry Hungry, your post came too soon!
I’m do not want to argue or debate. I thought it was crazy to expect women to wear littly lacy hats, and to have waist long hair, so I spent way to much time arguing with them. However, I don’t see the scripture you quoted “Nevertheless, we have no such custom…”
Rather I see
“All God’s churches see it this way; I don’t want you standing out as an exception.”
or
“If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.”
or is you prefer:
“and if any one doth think to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the assemblies of God.” (they also belived that KJV was the only word of god)
That pretty much shut me up at this point in the conversation. Can you do better than I?
i invite you boys to come to The Bridge here in Portland and see a community where men and women lead side by side in harmony and biblical equality.
Sorry, Pam, but the Bridge is a MESS, as big a mess as CBC. The leadership there is not an example of effective leadership.
Joey,
My unsaved sister in law just told me recently that she thinks people who believe the Bible as truth and take it literally are stupid. She says the Bible is a bunch of stories at best and weird violent fairy tales at worst. She also said ‘all these people who worship the bible and then judge everyone around them but secretly participate in the same perverted stuff themselves’ are just like the rest of us.
With that said, Joey, if you look at the big picture of those without God who surround us, do you really think all your scriptural prowess and debating ability is really helping anyone at all? I’d like to see you try to convince someone like my sister/friend/treasured mother of my nephews and nieces how she needs to believe the bible or the God of the Bible. I’m at a loss with her. All I can do is pray for her and love her for the person she is and God forbid that I ever throw scripture around to try to convince her how wrong she is. She would just tell me to go xxxx myself.
Truly I don’t know how we went from discussing egalitarianism to evangelism. However that being said, I would characterize the preceding as a debate about something within the church and definitely not something that I would ever discuss with an unbeliever.
In reference to your sister in law; all you can do is pray for her and love her. You can’t save her, I can’t convince her of anything. Only God can save and He can use you as an example of his grace in her life. All you can do is try your best to live out the gospel in front of her, so that she knows that you are not perfect and that God loves us anyway. We all have sin and will continue to have to deal with it until the day we die, so really we’re all hypocrites by that estimation. Thank God for grace!
I’m just astounded how un-thinking and un-reasoning Christians can be.
For example, how often have we said “the Bible is the inspired and inerrant word of God” or “God breathed”, etc., as if to attribute the entire content, down to the very “choice of words” as Judah says, to GOD HIMSELF.
So, here we have this teaching of Paul that women can NOT teach men (I do not permit a woman to teach a man), and the instruction for women to be silent in the assembly, yet the BIBLE, which we believe is the word/voice of God, contains the stories of many great women and what they had to say to the assembly of saints at the time, and continue to say to us through scripture in the assembly even today. IF God were really behind the “no women teachers” and “silencing of women” instruction, don’t you think He would have made the Bible about men only?
The scripture WTFWJD shared has a key word for me …
Isn’t custom just another word for tradition? If we take the time to understand the Bible as a historical, cultural document, written by Jews 2000 years ago, whose religious background was temple worship in Jerusalem and synagogues in the outskirts of Israel, we might see that the men-only / women silent approach to gatherings is rooted in old Judaism. So here comes Jesus, NOT teaching in the temple or in the traditional ways of Judaism, rather, He’s teaching in the wilderness, free of buildings and religious structure, teaching equally men and women and children. What does he have to say to his disciples who are trying to direct crowds around Him? He chastens His disciples with such as “Let the little ones come unto me”, “he who is not against us is for us”, etc.
In Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, there is no mention of apostles or any of the other 5 fold ‘offices’; the followers of Jesus are simply called disciples (talmidim). The rules and structure and offices were all introduced by the disciples now apostles, after Jesus had ascended – and I have to wonder how much of what they introduced to the Church was imported from their OT temple worship, separate priesthood type paradigm – in other words, how much of what they implemented was TRADITION vs. truly God breathed.
I don’t think it is such heresy to compare Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, with the rest of the NT, and note the differences. Surely the gospels are the purest form of the “word of God” (via Jesus) – Jesus who overcame the flesh … but Paul for example said in 1 Cor. 13 that He saw “dimly” and elsewhere Paul lamented the battle he had with overcoming the lusts of his flesh and called himself “wretched” – there are even places in Paul’s writings where he says specifically that it is his words and his practice – and sometimes he says it is from the Spirit …
Joey said:
How can you NOT weigh scipture that way, when there are obvious contradictions, and when the authors themselves said that some of the words they were writing were their own and not the Spirit? Yes, it is God inspired, but sometimes, because we see dimly and we war with our flesh, we get it wrong.
I’m convinced that the scriptures pertaining to women in leadership and silence is rooted in Jewish OT tradition. Just as temple worship is rooted in OT tradition. Heck, the modern institutional church with its clergy/laity divide and temple worship is no more less than continuing OT tradition and trying to squeeze Jesus into tradition. Could that be what He meant when He said “come out of her, my people”? To leave that old temple-worship paradigm, and join Him outside the camp, where men and women are equally his disciples and learn at His feet?
What would the Church look like, if the NT were just Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Revelation?
Jack
Emigre,
I appreciate your tender heart for your sister in law…our unsaved family members can be the most intimidating and challenging people to witness to, especially if they have observed behavior in us that dishonors our Lord. That should make us acutely aware of our own walk, and make sure it is fully representing the name of Christ. However, that doesn’t let us off the hook to talk to them urgently at least one time about eternity.
I think the biggest problem with witnessing (besides the hypocracy–it’s funny how the world is more aware of how Christians should act than many ‘Christians’ are..:o) ) is the focus on the here and now. The whole “convert to Christianity so you can be ‘fixed’, do poor ol’ grampa/Santa God a favor and give your life to Him so’s He will bless you and make you happy, then you can give all your time, talents and treature to some rich pastor who is nothing but a wolf in sheep’s clothing” is nauseating.
Whether the world likes it or not, death will come knocking on their door someday, and they will have to face the God they say they don’t know and don’t care to know without excuse (Rom. 1:19-20), and, even though He doesn’t want to, (2Pet. 3:9) out of His Holy standard of perfection, He will cast them into the agonies of eternal fire.
These same people who mock us will be the same ones who will be accusing us if their terrified eyes meet ours on the Day of Judgment, wondering why we didn’t care about them enough to warn them of the wrath to come….
An excellent place to learn how to confidently share your faith is here.
For God loved the world so much that he gave the Bible, so that everyone who believes in it may not die but have eternal life.
John 1:1-5
” 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 was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.”
Eternal life does not come through the scriptures, but the scriptures direct us to the Son (John 5:39) and provide a pattern for us to emulate as we follow Him. How can we follow Him if we know not what He does?
The Bereans (Acts 17:11) were commended by their daily searching of the scriptures to ensure that what the disciples said was true and trustworthy. If you do not have a standard, how, pray tell, do you decide what is true and what is false in your Christian walk??? Please don’t tell me that you just rely on the ‘spirit’, because God’s ‘word’ clearly tells us to test the spirits, to see if they are from God. (1 John 4:1)
[Comment ID #13830 Will Be Quoted Here]
hey anon, can you email me at jamnperry@comcast.net with your concerns about the bridge. (do I know you?)
i’ve been a church-going woman for over two decades. i have yet to find a church community that is not a mess to some degree in some capacity. at the bridge, they are at least a mess in the open and not hiding behind religious masks.
Interesting point, ‘Scrupe … it is Jesus who saves, not the Bible. And my faith in Jesus to save me is not shaken if there are errors, ommissions, mistranslations, contradictions in the Bible …
Compare any of the quotations of Jesus in MMLJ and see that they are not identical, but still sufficient to get the gist of what He said; see the footnote in the last several verses of Mark 16, which say they are not found in the oldest most reliable manuscripts, so we know they were added somewhere down the line by some zealous translator; read the introduction to translations like the NIV and see that it was a translation by men trained in the seminary schools of men, and by virtue of membership in their non/anticharismatic mainline denominations are almost certainly not baptized with the Holy Spirit, and so their translations are likely the result of doctrinal slant and institutional bias.
Ignore scriptures like the last verse or 2 of John which say that IF all Jesus said were written down, the whole world wouldn’t be able to contain the books, meaning, the Bible is just a minute subset of what Jesus said, and not the ALL in ALL people make it out to be. Or, ignore that wonderful passage in 2 Cor 3 (?) which says WE ARE EPISTLES OF CHRIST written on by HIM on our hearts. So if the epistles of Paul are considered the “word of God”, why not the epistles of Christ (US?). We are every bit as much the ‘word of God’ as the Bible is. If Christ is IN me, and I IN Him, am I not a walking talking witnessing “word of God”?
So, to me, the whole “sola scriptura” – the Bible is all there is (so it must be perfect) thing is just barking in the dark … my confidence is in a person – the son of God – not a book, which clearly has some problems with it. My faith survives if the Bible is less than perfect. Don’t get me wrong, I love to read it, it waters my soul, it’s words when stirred by the Holy Spirit heal me and teach me, but, I recognize that it is the person who is the real word, and it takes the person to breathe life into the written (logos) word.
The Bible is to the Father, Son and Spirit, what a business card is to me. If 2000 years down the road, some nincompoop sect discovered my business card and began worshipping me, teaching that my business card was the sole authority for knowing and discerning all things about me, well, I might just have to come down there, show them the real me, and endure their crucifixion when I didn’t measure up to their interpretation of me. How I wish people would cling to the Son with the same fervor with which they cling to the Bible.
My dad used to tell it this way: you use a road map to get to where you are going. When you get there, do you continue studying the road map or do you shift your focus to the one you went to see?
More power to you, Pastor Eileen. You are why I so strongly support the ordination of women. We need more of you. Think of yourselves as missionaries to men.
Well, just for the fun of it all, someone help me with a few perplexing questions:
Which has greater authority, The Word of the Lord, or Scripture?
And, before you just answer “The two are one and the same thing” please prove that statement before making it, otherwise you won’t help me resolve my questions.
And one more teaser…
For those who champion the doctrines of Infallibility and Inerrancy of Scripture, do they not plant those doctrines on the original texts, of which we have none? And if we have none of those, then are we not dishonest if call the Scriptures we carry around with us “infallible and inerrant?” And if they are not inerrant then at what point would we cease requiring everything we believe to be sola scriptura, I.e. based 100% on scripture alone?
And finally, I’ve heard that of the thousands of ancient manuscripts that historians and archeologists have found, that no two of them agree 100%. And before someone replies, “Yes, but their places of disagreement are often just minor spelling changes,” still, I want to know what this tells me about the personal practicality and confidence I can place in the doctrine of an inerrant bible?
You see, I’m perplexed if inerrant means anything doesn’t it mean 100% inerrant? If infallible means anything doesn’t it mean 100% infallible? And if this is true, then what does 99%, or 89%, or 79% tell me? Ie. anything less than 100%. How is it then “infallible” (I.e. not fallible in any way), or “inerrant” (I.e. not errant in any way)
Sorry if these questions are unsettling, but my last questions are even harder – “What is the possibility that we believe in the scriptures more than we do in the God of the scriptures? What is the possibility we tend more to worship scripture and our interpretation of it than we do Jesus? Should we really have so little value in “The Word of Lord,” when for 4100 years, the readers and writers of scriputre listened more for the Word of the Lord than they did in studying the scriptures, either because they couldn’t read or there were no manuscripts any where near where they lived?” The early Church didn’t have a compiled set of the apostles teachings, until long after the apostles and themselves died, much less have a full copy of the Old Testament, which was just about as scarse as hen’s teeth.
Is it just possible Church history has fed us a line that we have accepted, for reasons other than the pure divine logic of confidence in the scriptures, and more for reasons of what placing too much confidence in written scripture does to our confidence to listen to the Head of the Church, than to Ecclesiastical/Hierarchical leaders? Is it not true that Ecclesiastical leaders have, throughout Church history, either told us directly or indirectly, that our chances of rightly interpreting Scripture without their scholarly understanding was anywhere from slim to none, and their status as keepers of the truth won them salaries, control, and power to abuse, contort, and misinterpret scripture over the centuries leading to some of the greatest atrocities and abominations of human history, all in the name of Jesus and proper biblical interpretation?
I’ll pause now and go refresh myself by reading and studying the scriptures on my daily reading schedule. How I do love the scriptures. They are my soul’s delight and the refreshing of my spirit. I can literally sense the breath of Jesus throughout my times before Him and the scriptures.
*sigh*….(Job 16:3) *chuckle* I just couldn’t resist taking a litle scripture out of context…:o)
Therein lies the biggest problem with so many dogmatic stands we tend to make. We assume the Almighty God is as simple as we are. We assume the we can ‘figure Him out’. We assume that He thinks as we think, His ways are our ways, (Isaiah 55:8) and that we can put Him in a predictable, comfortable box that we can trust will not confuse us or trouble us.
The same God Who said “Thou shall not lie”, used Rahab to fool those who were after the spies (Joshua 2:4-6) and the Hebrew widwives tell Pharaoh that they couldn’t get to their babies in time to kill them. (Exodus 1:19) In fact, even Jesus seemed to decieve the disciples right before the Jews feast of the Tabernacle (John 7:6-10) Does that mean that we have a license to lie? Just because there are a few ‘exceptions”?
Do we comb the scriptures like modern day lawyers, looking for any excuse to ignore the commands of our Lord, taking advantage of His precious Grace and trampling the cleansing blood under our feet, as a license to sin? This is why Jesus made His warning in (Matthew 7:21) that only those who do the ‘will of the Father’ will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, in fact, He boldly called those who didn’t, “Those who practice ‘lawlessness’”. What nerve.
)
If we find any exceptions to God’s ‘law’, does that give us an excuse to live any way we want to ‘making it up as we go’? Paul, Peter, James, John obviously thought that there were necessary assumptions and expectations for believers to behave, otherwise they wouldn’t have bothered with most of the New Testament telling believers to ‘examine themselves’, to ‘walk worthy of the calling’ to be ‘filled with the fruits of righteousness’….do you figure the New Testament authors were just a bunch of bossy, controlling windbags who liked to hear themselves dictate?
)
You sure don’t have to read very far to see that the Law of God has moved from the external to the heart, which is where pretty much all of our trouble comes from. (Luke 6:45) (Matthew 15:18) (Mark 7:21) (Matthew 15:19) A heart that is self willed and rebellious will always question authority, whether it is God’s word, or His Spirit. They will use a few examples of ‘abusers’ to throw the baby out with the bath and rely on their own ‘wisdom’, which God called ‘foolishness’ (1 Cor. 3:19)
(2 John 9-11) (Jude 17-25)
Hungry,
You are aware that everywhere the NT uses the word scripture, it is referring to the Law of Moses (Torah), Prophets and Writings (i.e., the Old Testament)? By what authority do you call the New Testament scripture? By what authority do you include the letters of Paul, John, Peter, James and Jude as scripture, and of equal weight as the OT and Gospels, while ignoring what is commonly called the apocrypha?
The same men (catholics) who decided to include Acts through Jude in the ‘canon of scripture’ could just as easily have excluded those books as they did the apocrypha.
Your arguments for an infallible Bible are really silly, all things considered, and your legal posturing for rote obedience to the Bible is laughable in as much as you belong to a corporate body that ignores many scriptures. Have you pleaded your case for rote obedience to all the NT to your church board and membership?
If you loved the law of the Lord like you claim, I should think you’d be leading the charge to defrock your women pastors; replace your women elders and teachers; silence your women and make them cover their heads!
“…as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you,
16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.
17You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked; (2 Peter 3:15-17) emphasis mine…:o)
I see ‘rest’ as an inclusive word that links Paul’s word with the ‘rest of scriptures’?
) Of course, you are wiser than Peter, who assumed/recognized that Paul’s writings were ‘inspired’?
The fallable men who decided on cannonizing scripture were led by God, just as the original authors of the manuscripts were inspired by God, Who is perfectly capable of using each of us weak, imperfect, followers to accomplish His will and further His kingdom. Is He not capable of making sure each generation has the recorded means to know and understand their Creator? God–haters have tried throughout the centuries to eradicate the Bible, while God has tenderly watched over and preserved His written word.
I do not worship the Bible, any more than I worship the elements of communion. It is, however, a practical study tool that the Spirit teaches me from daily. I’m sorry that you have such a difficult time accepting the word as a necessary part/pattern of Christian living. I’m ever so curious; what do you use as a guide for your Christian life? How do you know what Jesus did in order to follow Him? How do you know if you are being led away from the Truth that has released you from the bonds of sin’s deadly snare? What is the ‘point’ of your salvation?
All of Christianity is a delicate balance;
Paul emphatically wrote to the Galations to quit trying to go back under the law, yet James was just as adamant that faith without works is dead. Those kind of paradoxical statements do not trouble me. I can have confidence that it is not by my works or how well I follow the law that I please God OR gain eternal life, yet I can also believe that if my Christianity is not demonstrated by a transformed, thankful life and does not affect humanity in a positive way, I have deceived myself and do not have saving faith.
I can believe ALL of scripture, knowing that the God I serve is beyond my limited comprehension, yet He has graciously given me the ‘mind of Christ ‘ (1 Cor. 2:16) to guide me, and promises that if I am lacking in wisdom, all I have to do is ask, and He will give it to me (James 1:5-8) then I can walk with confidence that my life is fully pleasing to Him, not based on my own ‘wisdom’ but on His direction.
There is no perfect church, just as there are no perfect people. God has put me in the body I am in, and my role is to let my life be a living epistle, that others may be ministered to, loved, encouraged, edified, exhorted and/or convicted in whatever capacity God uses me.
So were the translators inspired too? If so, why was the KJV translator allowed to change the 6th commandment from “Thou shalt not murder” (original Hebrew meaning) to “Thou shalt not kill”? I’d be willing to bet the large majority of Christians today believe the incorrect translation is the actual commandment because of a translation mistake that has existed for over 200 years. How does a Bible flaw like that line up with your previous statements?
This isn’t about finding a flaw with the Bible so we can rebel. It’s about accepting the possibility that the Bible has accumulated human-based errors over the years and we need to use our God-given discernment instead of blindly following every last letter of Scripture without question.
I highly recommend the book “Misquoting Jesus” by Bart D. Ehrman. It is a layman’s explanation on the origin of the New Testament and why we only have the copies of the copies and no original texts. It’s an eye opener for sure, and something that will make anyone question the idea of an “inerrant” Bible that is clearly full of errors. It is probably not the only book you should read on the subject, but it is a good start.
However, after reading it, I tend to think my faith is stronger, for the reason that in spite of all the numerous problems, the basics of the Christian faith still hold together under scrutiny. It’s like looking at a large photograph with small faded spots and stains. Some details have been obscured, but the overall gist of the image is still there and the lost details have little or nothing to do with the Eternal Purpose. Christians who quibble over these details are being petty in most cases. Christians who still insist that the photograph is “perfect” have their heads up their asses.
Misquoting Jesus on Amazon.com
Hungry,
Twice now you have stated:
I feel quite certain you are correct, as otherwise how could we have confidence that God is greater than our ability to error, HOWEVER, I’m still perplexed.
If God did exert His omnipotent power to preserve an infallible and inerrant Bible, in the same manner with the copiests and the canonical councils, as with the original writers, then why is that of the thousands of Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew manuscripts, we find no two manuscripts 100% agreeing with each other?
What does this do to our understanding of “inerrant?” My question is not focused towards a conclusion that we have a useless Bible, because I know we don’t, but what about this matter of inerrancy?
And, if the doctrine of inerrancy is predicated 100% on the belief that the original manuscripts were 100% inerrant, of which we have none of these original manuscripts, how does that commute confidence to me that my bible, which is based on “errant” copies, should still justifiably be considered “inerrant.” Maybe I don’t know what “inerrant means.”
I don’t understand this. Can someone help me with this matter?
Since Pilate washed his hands of Jesus execution, believers have been absolving themselves of their involvement in corporate evil. How can anyone be so adamant about obeying scripture, yet be a card carrying / contributing member of an institution that habitually disobeys scripture?
Come out of her (the institution) my people – do not take part in her (the institution’s) sins … (Revelation 18:4) …
So, Hungry, you never said how you feel about women in ministry – how you resolve the issue of women ministers at your church, or ignoring Paul’s instructions regarding women.
Tom, it will probably sound like I am picking on you but I have a question. Are you telling the truth when you say [Comment ID #14453 Will Be Quoted Here] I think you know exactly what you believe and are not really expecting someone to ‘help’ you.
I am sorry I thought I was only highlighting the inserting the phrase “I don’t understand this. Can someone help me with this matter?”
Great to hear from you again JB, even if it is to pick my words to pieces.
You are partially correct. I actually do reserve a place within me for unanswered questions about such a controversial subject, but because direct confrontation of this issue is sooooo over the top for IC trained people, I have couched my partial beliefs in genuine questions. I’d rather have people think than just emotionally over react and lead this subject into the morass of human personality conflicts and angry emotion.
I have pondered this subject for years and years, and I have more questions about it today than back when I went to Bible College. My current “beliefs” in this area are more like “strong leanings,” so, rather than just make folks here angry, I’d love to have some of these good thinkers express the fruit of their journey, and at the same time challenge some of their conditioned answers to a subject I suspect some have failed to adequately explore, based on the answers they’ve been fed.
That’s the rest of the story…
Purl,
If you have a hard time with sarcasm, then you probably won’t like this blog much.
JB,
As best as I understand inserting quotes here, you click the small box above the comments box, that reads “b-quote,” then you travel up the blog and copy the section you want to quote, and then paste it in after the “b-quote” you placed in the comments box, and at the end of the quote you click the same “b-quote” box again, and voila…you have just inserted a quote.
Hope this helps!
(1 Timothy 6:3-5)
)
Once one senses a frothing mouth and sees that rabid glow in somebody’s eye, (or post) you know that you are involved in something that will serve no purpose…it is at that point that one needs to amicably agree to disagree…:o)
It’s sure been fun…I’m not leaving…just watching until I feel I have something less ‘subjective’ to share…:o)
Dear Hungry,
I’m not sure if you were referring to me in your statement:
But, if so, well, I surely don’t want that to be true, and if all I’ve done is anger or frustrate you, that was not my intention, though I will have to admit, that frustration and confusion are often the gateways to further insight.
I love the scriptures, and I study them all the time. They are continually a deep well of the inbreathing of God into my spirit man. However, as time has gone by I believe the Lord has been showing me, that what motivated the Church, from the time of Adam and Eve, up through the apostolic writers, is “The Word of the Lord.” I know theologians have equated “The Word of the Lord,” with Scripture, but I believe this is a grave mistake.
I surely believe the scripture reflects the Word of the Lord, but the Word of the Lord is more specifically that which the Living Word, the Lord Jesus, speaks at any given time, to those who hunger for His Word. With the “canonization” of scripture, while they “may” have had good intentions in this development, the down side, from my perspective, is that it turned the Church away from listening for, responding to, and thriving in, “The Word of the Lord.”
Along with our doctrines of inspiration, infallibility, and inerrancy of scripture, we have placed such an emphasis on the written scriptures to the down playing of “The Word of the Lord.”
Certainly I’m a huge proponent of not accepting every prophecy as necessarily being “The Word of the Lord,” but I want my ear to be opened to hear Him speak, and while I revere the scriptures, I resist the outcomes of these Church council doctrines to diminish my respect for, appreciation of, and obedience to “The Word of the Lord.”
The Church quickly detoured from a creation view of life, to an Aristotelian, Socratic, and Platonic rationalism, that filled the Catholic Church, and has led all of Church history down the pathway towards an over emphasis on a rational, intellectual, cerebral approach to God. I’m convinced this has been a very unhealthy outcome, and we would do well to question it, and see if God would deliver us from it. In some cases it has led to a worship of scripture over God, and in others a worship of human skill in hermeneutically, exegetically, and contextually working with scripture. It has all too often led to hero worship of the scholars, the preachers, and the doctors of theology. We gave them too much of our trust, and allowed, unwittingly, them to lead us off course from the living God Himself.
One of the great dangers of the IC is that it distracts the believers from the centrality of Jesus, and places their focus on man, on programs, on scripture interpretation, etc. etc., and away from Jesus Himself.
Certainly I’m not advocating for an “irrational/crazy” approach to God and His Word, but I am suggesting that an approach to His Word that values, even longs for “The Living Word of the Lord,” coming to His people, is more in line with what the Old and New Testament writers anticipated for God’s people, especially with the coming of the Holy Spirit.
Listen to Psalm 138
Psa 138:1 Of David. I give you thanks, O LORD, with my whole heart; before the gods I sing your praise;
Psa 138:2 I bow down toward your holy temple and give thanks to your name for your steadfast love and your faithfulness, for you have exalted above all things your name and your word.
Psa 138:3 On the day I called, you answered me; my strength of soul you increased.
Psa 138:4 All the kings of the earth shall give you thanks, O LORD, for they have heard the words of your mouth,
Psa 138:5 and they shall sing of the ways of the LORD, for great is the glory of the LORD.
Notice how David speaks of the lofty place of His name and word. Then notice he’s not directly referring to the scripture, but to “The words of your mouth,” which God had answered David with.
Before we are too quick to say, “Yes, but David is a writer of scripture,” what is the likelihood that David knew that? To David he just saw himself as a man, like any other man, who loved to have God speak to Him.
Is there great danger in man saying “God said this, or God said that?” Sure, but look how, for at least 4100 years God took that risk. He identified false prophets and teachers as those who led His people away from Him, and towards false gods, idols, and abominable practices of human sacrifice and immorality. He didn’t sweat the ones who were doing their best to hear from Him and faithfully communicate that to His people, but who undoubtedly didn’t get it 100% right. He worked with them, and we believe He guided men to consider scripture writers as being those writers who got it more right, perhaps even perfectly right, than others.
The point is, when the Church gave such emphasis to “canon,” and all the Catholic Church councils, and even non Catholic councils, somewhere in all those discussions a resultant rationalism developed in the Church, and common men and women lost their anticipation of the “Word of the Lord” coming to them. They learned to turn to the theological doctors to tell them what God had said, what scripture meant, and for centuries they stopped even hoping for a bible to read.
We are still coming out of all that stuff. The dark ages were dark for all kinds of reasons, but one of the reasons it was so dark is because the Church so corrupted the image of God and His Word that men became slaves of a religious system and an institutional Church, which devasted millions of people worldwide.
We look at history myopicly, and fail to see that God is working with history in the bigger picture. The bigger picture for today is that God is bringing millions, worldwide, out of the IC Church, with its over emphasis on rational/cerebral approaches to Scripture, and teaching them to hear Him in Scripture, to wait on Him for His Word to come to them, and to believe that even if they don’t have some high falluting title or seminary degree they can still hear the ever living God speak.
I surely hear Him in scripture, and I’m not comfortable with hearing things in Him that contradict scripture, but I don’t want to restrict His voice to that which is written in scripture.
I no longer feel as great a need for an infallible or inerrant bible, as much as I see a great need for people to walk intimately with our God, and let Him teach us afresh to hear His voice.
I’m not as concerned if all that Paul wrote is infallible or not. It wouldn’t surprise me if it was and if it wasn’t. I don’t worship Paul, though I love and respect him. I’m leaning away from needing scripture to be inerrant for it to still be a source for the inbreathing of God.
To some this represents a move towards heresy, and I sure hope not, but I believe multitudes are coming to recognize that their personal approach to scripture is far less “scholarly,” and far more personal and intimate an experience with God.
He is alive, and He is still speaking, and I’m no longer fearful that if the bible is less than flawless that I can’t hear and follow God. I can, I am, and I believe you are too.
Rest assured, Tom, I’m neither angry NOR frustrated…I had a great time sparring with you and the other ‘anti-scripture’ folks (just teasing!
) I think it’s always good practice to be able to articulate clearly what you believe and why, as well as exercise the spirit and get to know those amazing Scriptures better… *Grin*
I’ve just found that there comes a time when I know that I will not be convinced in a particular area that my beliefs are wrong, and the person I am communicating with is just as convinced that their view is correct, that it does no good to circle around, chase rabbit trails and wade your way through a fog of verbiage to try to agree.
)
I don’t have to convince anyone that my way is the only way, or that I have an enlightened handle on the Truth. I just like to say what I believe about my passions…not that anyone particularly cares but me…*Cheezy grin*
Bless you!
)
Hungry,
That’s nice! I’m glad you weren’t too miffed by the interchange.
As for me…I admit, it’s a mix. I enjoy some theological interaction. I’m sure I still have a latent “need” to be agreed with, thus too pushy at times, and finally I really do feel very passionate about some things. This matter of “The Word of the Lord,” I guess is one of them.
Romans 10:17 (English Standard Version)
“So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.”
While we can rail against the excesses of the IC and it’s scholars, I still think it is important to note a few things in particular: That is that God is so utterly “other” than us in his infinity, that through his common grace this world is held together and with his total magnificance in mind, I believe that it would be a small matter for him to keep a simple book together through the centuries. I believe to think otherwise would belittle his incommunicable attributes (omnicience, omnipotence and omnipresence). It is not a big leap of faith for me to believe this. I don’t worship the bible, but I do worship it’s ultimate author and I have confidence there is nothing that has EVER taken him by surprise.
Is scripture 100% correct? There is no way to judge this since we don’t have the originals, but this arguement goes both ways since it can’t be disproved either. Does this put sway to my faith? Not in the slightest! (Please see above for explaination).
As far as the authority of the “word of the Lord”, I would have to say that I have been through enough excesses of the practice that I would have a tendency to view it as suspect. Although I would not discount it as a practice. Tom, I do believe it has merit however I will continue to judge it against a literal translation of the Bible. (my preference).
Perhaps I am being simple in this, here is a quote from a song in my
3 year olds class….” my God is so big, so strong and so mighty, there’s nothing my God can not do….”
That sums it up for me.
Good Joey, very good! No bone to pick with you. I like what you’ve said.
I don’t “need” to be agreed with. The subject is a vast one, and in the end I feel confident all of us, throughout all Church history, will have it partially right and partially wrong. It’s a fascinating journey to wholeness in Christ, and coming to the truth as it is in Him.
I acknowledge and value your journey and perspective, as I value mine!
Tom,
It’s great to hear from you!
I will be in touch.
Joey
Joey,
Great! I look forward to it!
Tom
There is a statement I have often heard in charismatic circles, to the effect of “everything that can be shaken will be shaken” – I think the statements origin is in Hebrews 12:27 which reads:
Since leaving the IC years ago and following the Spirit’s leading, fellowshipping only when / where the Lord leads, He has indeed shaken everything that I once clung to as part of my faith. Like my own personal ‘tower of babel’ much of what I believed came crashing down as the result of His shaking. Often, the mode of that shaking was the Spirit asking questions and prompting me to search scripture for the anwers or to seek the Father through fasting and prayer. It can be a frightening thing to watch as your own personal tower of babel comes crashing down, but in the end, it is clear that which is unshakeable: the grace of God in the Mesiah who saves me and the deposit of the Holy Spirit in me.
Upon asking questions about the teachings of men (doctrines) – the so-called foundation of the faith, I have been accused of lawlessness, deception, backslidden, doubting thomas, wolf in sheeps clothing, etc., and have seen one element in common whatever institution I have asked the questions of: they avoid answering the tough questions and fire back with accusations.
It all reminds me of the OT practice, where the priests examined the lambs brought to the temple for sacrifice, to ensure that the lamb was without spot or defect. In a sense, that practice suggests whatever we place our faith and hope upon, must stand up to rigorous inspection and be found without fault or blemish. Even Jesus was subject to such examination – brought in the middle of the night to the high priest and counsel, examined for hours, yet no one could find defect as no 2 witnesses could agree.
Ultimately, we are told to test all things (1 Cor. 14:29, 1 Thes. 5:21, etc.), presumably by the Holy Spirit and gift of discernment, and discard that which is false.
No one here has discarded the Bible or scripture, however several have (myself included) questioned the notion that the Bible is “infallible”, that the Bible is “the sole authority” or rather “is all God has to say” (thereby negating “the Word of the Lord” as Tom said). In coming to understand the OT in a historical and cultural context, written by the Jews for Jews and practicioners of Judaism, we have surely questioned whether the teachings of Paul, a self-admitted “Jew of Jews” were rooted in Jewish tradition, or by the leading of the Holy Spirit for the new covenant.
Though the notion of infallibility / sola scriptura / canon of scripture has crumbled for many of us who have dared question and investigate the doctrines, Jesus remains.
There was a time years ago when I was still in the IC, and the IC was still firmly in me, that I met someone who believes like I do now. I couldn’t silence that person fast enough. They asked of me the same questions I often ask of others, but I could not receive the questions then because I wasn’t ready to answer them – I wasn’t ready to turn my personal tower of babel over to the Lord – I was still trying to fix it. Certainly I knew it was off kilter, but I was so vain at the time as to think I could fix it and inspire others to fix it. That is, until the day the Lord said to me “get out of the way and let it fail”.
On the day I came out of my tower of babel (the institution), where I was safe from its certain destruction, the Lord began shaking it with many difficult questions and eye-opening answers. Now that I am far removed from the IC, I can see one of the basic problems: everyone involved in the IC has their own blue print – their own vision for what it should look like – and because every builder is working to different plans, there is little cooperation (unity) and the end result is a pile of rocks stuck together with slime (Genesis 11:3). Funny that slime – just another word for tar – which when subjected to light (heat) it melts and the rocks tumble down – or fire and the entire tower is destroyed. What is our Lord but a consuming fire? (Hebrews 12:29, Mark 9:49).
Some of the questions the Lord has asked that have brought down the tower of the IC in my life are as simple as:
If you had no prior knowledge of Jesus or the church and were given the 4 gospel books as a blueprint for the church, would you construct anything that looks like the institutional church today?
Anyway, my experience is that the truth that sets us free, is arrived at through Jesus whose light of truth begs questions about what we have learned from men. There is no point asking such questions of people who are still firmly rooted in the institution, for the simple reason that they are still committed to men and the tower of babel they are erecting. Personally, I think a man/woman can have the Holy Spirit, but have relegated the Spirit to a subservient role in their life while continung to labor in the flesh after religious things, rather than living and learning spiritually. Until such persons are willing to submit to the crucifixion of their flesh (i.e., come to the cross), truth will escape them (1 Cor. 2:14) because they are living as natual men who possess the Spirit, rather than men who are possessed by the Spirit.
Any faith/belief that won’t stand up to rigorous examination / questioning, is not worth keeping.
Jack
Jack,
Soooo well said!
Jack,
Sometimes you sound like the label on Dr. Bronner’s soap
however,
I would agree with your last post.
Well done.
Joey
The soap will set you free, Joey.
I have, at the least, concerns which are grounded and shaped by my theological bias. A bais that is fused to a fundamental propostion: God is a veracious and truthful being. If that is a valid statement, God is truthfulness; then, it would seem to logically entail the concept of “inerrancy”. I assume most on this blog believe in inerrancy; however, to what degree the text is inerrant, is what is questioned…….
Inerrancy means that the Bible teaches the truth without error; nevertheless, the appearance of “discrepancies” have been the source of theological quarrels and disputes. Thus, its importance!!!
Apparently, according to some recent blogging, those who hold to a theological position that the Bible is fully truthful in all are “unthinking”- like a caveman, maybe? But the tongue-in-cheek remark is in itself tongue-in-cheek, an inordinate exaggeration!!! As a matter of fact, thinking christians actually do believe in a “full inerrancy”.
I hope we would all agree that a hasty generalization by leaping to a conclusion is a logical fallacy!!! For example, an assumption that states that because all people can make mistakes- you know we are all error prone doctrine- that all people must always make a mistake, is fallacious. Certainty and probability have two radically different linguistic meanings. If I played cards with 20 red heads and they all drank purple soda- would I be correct in assuming that all red heads drank purple soda, no!!!! Because we are human and humans do err does not necessarily mean that we err in everything……
And so I have no problems with human authors writing “Divine Literature” that is free from error; moreover, the Biblical assumption that God is omniscient is a juxtaposition, a reality that assists aswell in inerrancy…….
Thus, those who hold to the theological view that the Bible is full of incongrous contradictions; in fact, can questioned implicitly the capacity of God to know “all”…..
Now, to the question of apparent scientific and historical discrepancies….If it is found that the Bible does not speak the truth about empirically tested events, such as the chronological mishap of Chronicles and so on, what would that entail? Well, if it is true that our basis for holding to any theological idea is because the Bible says so than the implications are far-reaching!!! Because we cannot test empirically the validity of statements, such as the nature of God-God is-or the theological importance of the atonement for the reason that they suspend the realm of our experience, how can we know anything!?!? We can no longer hold to our ideological bias simply because the Bible teaches it….The Bible loses any kind of authority which than leads to a kind of subjectivism. One than must have an alternative basis for believing a Biblical proposition for logical support. If the Bible is wrong with the stuff that can be tested empirically than we cannot be certain that the Bible is right with the stuff that is “revealed”. Therefore, if the Bible is wrong in one, it is uncertain in all which can presumably lead to agnosticism in regards to the text………
What if you heard someone talk eloquently and profoundly about spirituality, yet there was no way to measure what they had to say, whether it was true or false. But in the middle of this certain discussion, this someone, begins to say dogmatically that the earth is square and the moon is really cheese and that purple elephants rule the world. What would you do?
.
I would call him a FREAK……………………….
Cowboy,
I know you, and many others will be uncomfortable with this partial answer to one of your concerns, but here it is to try on anyway.
You seem concerned, if I’ve deciphered your words accurately, that if we diminish any of the parts the sum of the whole will be diminished, and thus, when it comes to having any kind of confidence in the things we read in the bible, the entirety of it must be either inerrant or nearly inerrant.
I respect your logic, but step back away from the bible for just a moment, and think of the last book you read and respected on some spiritual discussion on a biblical issue of life.
You read that book. But, did you agree with everything? Not likely. You didn’t have the same expectation of inerrancy for it as you do for the bible. But, did you receive anything from it? In all likelihood you did. But how could you, if your argument of logic is accurate? It wasn’t a flawless writing. You concluded it had errors in its logic or information. You “discerned” or “knew outright,” of its errors, yet you were received something from it. You learned something about God.
In a similar fashion, the bible we know has at least transcriptional errors in it because no two manuscripts completely agree, from which we have translated our bibles, yet we derive tremendous spiritual strength from it. We know there are variants lying behind the textual history of the version we enjoy, yet we still consider it to sufficiently communicate the truth regarding God.
Therefore, in terms of our practical approach to Scripture, do we sense God and truth, and receive life from the things we read in it, even though there is a history of textual variant issues, and the answer is “yes.”
We do not practically require an inerrant bible to gain great things from it. There is no debate among evangelical scholars that the bibles we carry around with us are not equivalent to the original manuscripts, of which we have none anyway. All know the bibles we carry are not inerrant. Yet, we all receive great insight from them.
I would love to have a bible based on the actual original manuscripts, and I would love to know for certain that the thoughts expressed in those original manuscripts were divinely perfect, and beyond that I would love to have a much broader compendium of knowledge on God than even such manuscripts would give us, especially including all the things that Jesus did and taught that would fill all the libraries of the world, but we just don’t have these things. What we have is a vast improvement on nothing, but falls far short of a completed work. I think we need to rethink why God gave us the book He did. It may surprise us as to His expectations for it.
My guess is that it is, more than anything, a sign that points to the potential of a personal relationship with God, rather than a text given to resolve all theological questions about God, or even a flawless record of all He said to man. All one has to do is look at the huge difficulties theologians have had in developing a systematic theology. One solid theologian disagrees with another solid theologian, and not just on insignificant issues. From my perspective nobody has ever written systematic theology, whether its Calvin, Hodge, Barth, or Chafer, that settles all the questions. Why? Why not? What’s so darn difficult in this pursuit? Could it be that God never intended for us to settle on a systematic theology because He knew He hadn’t given us enough to actually achieve that? I think there is real merit to this question. I think He left a lot unsaid, incomplete, and hazy because He didn’t want us to rely on theological axioms and dogmatisms as much as He wanted us to walk closely and intimately with Him, and live with a whole lot of “not knowing.”
But then…I’m just like you…on a journey towards knowing Him. My thoughts on this vast subject are but a miniscule speck on the theological landscape of this issue.
Tom,
To what extent is the Bible not truthful??? Is it 30%, 60%, what about 55.3% not truthful……..
Are we willing to say that Biblical authority is couched in doctrinal truths alone?!? What is the cost of such an expedient?? Are we willing to say that faith is beyond refutation………..????
So if nothing can count against faith, can anything really count for it??? How can we know anything meaningful about the tenets of basic christianity, if faith is an uncertain pursuit of a God who could not even get it write about His words……..
What if Jesus was misquoted? How do we know that Jesus is right? What if God does not love but hate? Would we even know it?
What about the death of theism and the “God upstairs” theology? Are the metaphors and similes of the text dated? How do we really know if we are uncertain about the text?!?
The epistemological question when asked, assuages a spiritual instinct that faith must be grounded in something more than agnosticism and something less than absolutism. Faith must be more than a belief in an uncertain faith regarding some words that are uncertain unless you have the courage to be, in spite of….. I believe in a God who lovingly exists in spite of the evidence that He does not exist, would be a germane example!!!
Or is Augustine right when he said, ” I have learned to yield this respect…..only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings…appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the manuscript is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it.”
cowboy
Cowboy,
I respect your struggle with the fact that of the thousands of Greek New Testament manuscripts, that we have found and translated the bibles we carry around, no two agree. I too struggle with this, and am not quite certain what to make of it. I know the bible is truth, and that truth has come from an infallible God. But how to square the differences in the manuscripts is indeed a thorny issue. When you have it figured out I’d love to hear more on the subject. Until then I’ll just keep readin my bible, finding Jesus in every passage, and let God breath (theopneustos – inspiration) His heart and mind into me from every page, every verse, and every word.
Thanks!
Tom
Tom,
Inerrancy applies in the strict sense to the original, but in a derivative sense to the copies, that is, to the extent that they reflect the original….You have pointed out that the our Bible is not inerrant; however, the very concept of inerrancy applied only to the original is seldom used! Textual criticism has reduced the number of problems where there is really no question at all, for that matter, really no problem!!! What is being affirmed by the concept of inerrancy is that the inspiration did not extend to the copyist or translator…….
The Bibles we have are the word of God to the extent that they reflect the original, they are derivative…..It is likely that when Paul wrote to Timothy that scripture was inspired was referring to a copy and translation(Septuagint)………Hence, the validity of an inerrant Bible……..
cowboy
Ok, but how does that practically work out in my life? If I acknowledge that the doctrine of inerrancy applies only to the original manuscripts, and I’m well aware that is the focus of this doctrine, how does that help me relate to the bible I have that does have “some” errors in it? If, as the doctrine states or implies, that God supernaturally worked with the writers to guarantee a 100% inerrant text, yet did not preserve that inerrant text 100% throughout the history of copying and translations, then what practical help is it to me, in working with the bible I have?
Secondly, since the only use of the word “Theopneustos / Inspiration” in the bible is found in Paul’s text with no explanation of its meaning, we are pretty much left with determining it’s biblical meaning by consider the parts of this compound word “Theos / God” and “Pneustos / Breathed,” I.e. God breathed. So, what does this mean, in terms of inerrancy? I fully believe the Bible is God Breathed / Inspired, and I sense and believe I experience it in every book, passage, and word. It is like no other book. God literally breathes in it, and breathes it into me, BUT, does this equate to inerrancy? Or, does it just mean that God is able to breathe in it even if it is errant?
My questions lie far less with inspiration. Paul gave us that word. I fully buy into it. It is the manmade doctrines of inerrancy and infallibility I struggle with.
Tom,
I dont struggle because the variants are infinitesimally fixed and because Textual criticism is a sufficiently worked science…
My question is to you: Do you believe that there are considerable contradictions in the text that are irreparable, insofar as they reflect the original?
Its called “Hermeneutics”……..
And I have never understood that argument about inerrancy as a non- biblical concept!?! Of course it is! It is very possible that the Trinity is aswell depending on what theological persuasion one is associated with…..Non Biblical terms do not necessarily negate because they are non-biblical…..
Inerrancy is merely a philosophical term that describes the truthfulness of the text……
How could Augustine or myself answer such a question. I have never seen the originals. I didn’t and don’t feel the compunction to develop a doctrine such as inerrancy. Jesus and Paul both confidently quoted the Old Testament, so if it was free enough from errors for them to both quote it and not argue about what was in error, then I don’t see why I would need to develop a doctrine around guaranteeing it didn’t have errors, or argue that it does have errors.
I love the bible. I’m just supcious of the reasons for creating the doctrine in the first place.
If I found there were contradictions, and I do suspect there are some, I wouldn’t and don’t struggle with whether God could still speak to me from it, breathe in it, or protect me from wrong conclusions based on those errors.
I see no logical benefit from arguing for an inerrant text, when no one from Moses to John the apostle argued such. It was good enough for them, so it’s good enough for me.
When men invent doctrines, that the bible makes no inference of need for, then I suspect they have done so, less for the reasons they gave for it, I.e. to protect the body from errors, but more for the purpose of cementing their scholarly authority over the Church, and leaving the firm impression that they alone had the spiritual and intellectual acumen to accurately interpret and apply scripture for the masses.
When I considered that the same stream of IC scholars who developed these “extra biblical” doctrines, as well as “The Trinitarian” doctrine, later within their same institution decided the common person shouldn’t be allowed to own a copy of the bible in their own language, and were willing to crucify, burn at the stake, burn their homes down, and chase them throughout Europe, for wanting such a bible, I’m in general not to trusting of these folks.
I believe we have failed to consider the source of soooo many doctrines these guys gave us, and the outcomes of the IC Church. Courtesy of them we have the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the persecution of nearly every truly godly saint down throughout Church history.
So, Cowboy, until someone can demonstrate the absolute necessity for such doctrines of men, and traditions of these elders, I am very disinclined to pay them much attention.
Were there two Gadarine demoniacs or one? Who knows? Who cares?! Is the problem transcriptional or an error in the memory of the NT writers? Who knows? Who cares?! Nobody has ever needed to know the answer to such questions, and if I need some doctrine of inerrancy to calm my fears that God might not be capable of protecting the truth, then I truly have a very low estimation of God’s keeping power.
It’s a way complicated issue, and it’s 11:50 PM, and I must arise early and face the real world challenge of life tomorrow, and since these issues have been discussed over the ages I suppose it can wait until tomorrow for us to solve this for all the watching bloggers. I jest…but I really am tired…good night to all! It’s been an interesting day…
Amen!!!
I may be repeating an argument, but some of the high-falootin’ words confuse me…
I think that part of the danger of a doctrine of inerrancy is that it implies that the Bible has all the answers for everything. People who believe in this are usually the ones that tell you that you can solve all your problems through Bible study and prayer. As if there is something inherently supernatural in the process of reading the marks on a page. I had a friend who suffered a nervous breakdown after a long struggle with severe emotional trauma and the CBC leadership answer was for him to read the Bible more instead of seeking professional help. This also opens the door for spiritual abuse – pastors and leaders are constantly putting their spin on the “inerrant Word of God” and use it as a tool to keep people in line. Another problem with this is that doctrine subjugates science even when the evidence is clearly on the side of science. How many examples could I list of the IC persecuting the truth about the Universe God created because it didn’t line up with the doctrines of the IC? Even today people are still unwilling to even consider optional theories about Creation and dinosaurs, etc. (which we have already debated endlessly on this blog).
My current thinking is that the Bible has just enough answers for us to go on, starting with this one:
37 Jesus replied: ” ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ [c] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ [d] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
What tremendous freedom we have in those two rules! The whole point of the Gospel is that Christ came to set us free from the Law and its comprehensive list of do’s and don’t's.
It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.
Why would I then want to rebuild the Law by establishing “doctrine” on every idea under the sun based on the idea that the Bible is inerrant? All one has to do is read Galatians to see that Paul railed against the idea. And I think that people misquote Paul when he says “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful…” Notice he never says perfect, or complete, just “useful”. To assume any more than that seems a bit presumptuous.
I think God intended the Christian life to be a life of freedom in relationship with Him. The Bible is a good source of information about Him and how we are to love Him and how we are to love each other. Everything else is up to us. He gave each of us a free will and a creative mind to “subdue the earth”. He purposefully left it up to us to take care of the rest. We’re supposed to just wing it! God revels in our creativity in how we live our lives and the Bible isn’t intended to hamper that freedom.
Personally, I refuse to have that freedom revoked by the doctrines of men.
Hmmm…so….those who like to toss out the ‘freedom card’, What exactly are you ‘free’ to do with your life? Do you think freedom means you can do as you please and then hand in your ticket to Heaven at the door, expecting admission? What do you do with verses like (Mat 7:21) (Mat 5:13-15) (1 Cor. 1:19) (Matthew 22:8) (Luke 12:47) (John 12:26) ?
You do understand that the freedom Jesus gave us was not only from the requirements of the law, which history has shown clearly we couldn’t do anyway–not back then, and not today–but also from the power of sin? and gave us the freedom to do righteousness?
Hmmm, that’s interesting Hungry…maybe I missed something here, but I didn’t hear FICM being soft on sin, just big on grace, and the freedom we have in Christ.
I wonder why it is with some of us, that counter balancing seems so necessary in such an environment as this. Are we truly attempting to champion the nature of God, or the need to be seen as contrary, or His defender (as if poor God were unable to defend Himself and needed us to bolster His weakness), or is it that we have been sooo wounded ourselves by the legalists of the IC that we somewhere along the line developed a “better join em than fight em” mentality, so as to avoid their censure?
I don’t know…I’ve seen the same tendency in myself and I really don’t like it. I’m probably unique in this, but I’ve found such adamance towards harshly exposing sin is more frequently due to my own disinclination to relax in His grace for me. I’m uncomfortable before such overwhelming love. I find myself having to fight against it by reminding Him He is after all a “just” God, and a hater of sin. Sometimes I think I hear Him saying, “Tom, Tom, chill out a bit. I do hate sin, but even more than that I truly love the sinner. I love you Tom!”
Could it be we need a bit more of this? I don’t know, maybe it really helps for us to shout out “God hates sin,” 10 times, for every time someone says, “God is love,” but I wonder about this, I really do.
Ah, don’t go putting words in my mouth. I never said I used my freedom to disagree with the teachings of the Bible or live my life in a way that contradicts it. I still believe that Romans 6 (God set us free from sin) is still God’s truth and that it applies to me. But I also believe in the truth of Romans 14 (I’m free to do what the Holy Spirit doesn’t call sin).
I’m saying I refuse to live my life by the doctrines of men who build their “Laws” on a faulty premise of the Bible being inerrant. Too often that fallacy is used to prop up their religious idolatry and control of others. That’s what I’m saying.
Identifying those doctrines of men I disagree with is part of the reason why I comment here. I get to mock them for religious tom-foolery (no offense, Tom!) and these blogs have become the modern-day Ezekiel for our generation.
He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still. (Revelation 22:11 KJV)
Eh, what are the operative words in the above quote from scripture? (Hint: I highlighted ‘em for ya, Hungary)
How ’bout this one:
Young people, enjoy your youth. Be happy while you are still young. Do what you want to do, and follow your heart’s desire. But remember that God is going to judge you for whatever you do. (Ecclesiastes 11:9 GNB)
Clearly, the scriptures teach a “live and let live” philosophy!
Here’s the rub:
If you love me, you will obey MY commandments. (John 14:15 GNB)
Obedience is the measure of our love for Him.
Might be interesting to discuss what Jesus meant by “MY commandments” – it would be easy to gloss over that and insert OT law as His commandments … but what if Jesus means that which he taught in the gospels, or that which Tom has referred to as “The word of the Lord” (that which the Holy Spirit speaks to our Spirit of what He hears from Jesus?)
For example, where the OT prescribes stoning for many sexual sins, Jesus commandment is mercy – His example is laying down His life for sinners – His example is dining with them – His example of correcting them is to love, forgive, not accuse them, all with sensitivity and discretion, and send them on their way with an admonition to refrain from sinning again.
Where do believers get the notion that we are on some kind of war-like campaign against the sin in our society?
Why the focus on sin on our journey to Jesus? Isn’t it better to walk forward and look into the face of the one we are going to and rely on Him to lead and teach us, than ‘moon walk’ (backward) towards Jesus with our eye fixed on sin trying to creep up on us? Man, Jesus has our backs! Could be an application of the scripture “the one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom” … I don’t get the fixation on sin that believers have – is sin more beautiful to look at and focus on, than the Lord we are going to? Do we save anyone by convincing them not to sin, or not to sin as much? Doesn’t scripture say that it is the Holy Spirit’s job to convict the world of sin? If so, what the hell are we doing horning in on the Spirit’s job? Why not just live our lives by the Spirit, walk forward, eyes forward, to the Lord? Our ignorant blatherings about the sin of the world have done more to hinder the cause of Christ than any thing else we could have done. If Christ is SO great, why are we so focused on sin?
[Comment ID #14960 Will Be Quoted Here]
Is the Bible truthful? How do you know? If it is replete with errors- can you be certain that its truthfulness is truthful……
But how does one really know what is truthful!?! You sound nice and mean well; however, the logical consequence of your subjectivism leads to the suspension of belief(Agnosticism)
We cannot afford such an expedient………..and to be clear about “idolatry”, in relationship to the “dependability of Bible”, does not work as an argument-It was used by those who believed that truth was nonpropositional; essentially the Bible has/had no revelation…….
Cowboy, you talk as one who knows only the water baptism – or at least that’s what your intellectualism suggests. No offense, but do you know the baptism of Jesus with the Holy Spirit? Since the baptism with the Holy Spirit comes with gifts of the Spirit, what is your spiritual gift (1 Corinthians 12:8-10 and Romans 12:6-8)?
The answer to your question, for me at least, is that the Bible is just ink and paper, UNTIL such time as the Holy Spirit breathes life into the words for the reader where they are proven to be living and truthful.
As it says in 1 Corinthians 2:14 – it takes the Holy Spirit to reveal Truth and Spirit; natural man (unsaved and water baptism only) can not understand the Spirit and truth.
There is a scripture in Revelation which says that we overcome by the blood of the lamb and the word of our testimony, NOT by the blood and scripture. Our testimony is our account of the interative relationship we have with God in Christ via the Holy Spirit. Therefore the Word we know to be true and inerrant, is the living person: Christ Jesus. The logos word is nice, handy, as FICM points out “useful”, but it is Christ Jesus who is inerrant / infallible as proven to us by the Holy Spirit, who quickens the truth to us.
Just curious – what’s your sign gift?
Jack
Well, I’ll have to give it some more thought, Cowboy, but my knee-jerk reaction is to say that I believe that the Bible contains “truth” by an act of faith. To say your belief (?) that the Bible is inerrant requires equal amounts of faith, so I hardly see your point. If you require unconditional belief and adherence to religious dogma as a prerequisite to belief in God or the truth, then I’m afraid many Christians would not be able to join you in Heaven.
I’ll tell you what I believe to be true and no amount of word wrangling will change my mind: I believe that I have a very real daily relationship with a loving God who gave everything for me and I, in turn, wish to give everything to Him. The Holy Spirit who has been given to me testifies within my spirit the truth of God’s Word.
14 For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.
15 The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:
16 “This is the covenant I will make with them
after that time, says the Lord.
I will put my laws in their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds.”
Of all the arguments I’ve heard for or against Christianity, the one thing that no one can argue with is the evidence of a changed life. Someone who has been truly changed by the Gospel doesn’t need the doctrines of men to know it, and those around them don’t need an exegesis to see the proof for themselves. And what is the Bible? Just the testimonies and evidence of the changed lives of those Believers who have lived before us. Through them we have learned of the miracle of the Grace of Jesus, is there anything more important that that? One cannot prove or disprove the evidence contained within the Bible itself. Some believe that evidence to be inerrant – I do not. Does that make the truth of the Gospel any less relevant to me? I don’t believe it does. Do you?
I’ve held this back, but on of my favorites is:
I love this passage since my mom was “born out of wedlock”, I don’t have to go to church!
Its so funny how we have scandalized dogma……..Dogma is good insofar as it embodies the integrity of scripture. You have dogma, I have dogma, as does Jack……..
But Im talking, on a fundamental level, more about the “truthfulness” of God……If God is truthful does it logically entail that His “action”-capacity to inspire- was mixed up…….
My problem with a “changed life” apologetic is that many religions say the very same thing. However, I believe in the dynamic of a changed life but it has become such an overused colloquialism, that its meaningfulness has been flattened…….
I am not a “fundamentalist”-one who believes the Bible saves- However, this common view is a distortion of fundamentalism. Notwithstanding, I believe the answer to inerrancy determines how we treat the rest of the text…All to often, those that abandoned inerrancy, incrementally abandoned much more…….
Pity the poor bugger that verse was writ fer – wonder why the full armor of God doesn’t include a cup?
Jack,
You wont believe it-get ready for it- I am one of those crazy “charismatics”.
You’re right cowboy, I’m shocked. Let’s just hope when you speak in tongues it’s more intelligible than when you speak in english.
Cowboy, now I’m beginning to see your motivation here. I, too, once balked at the idea of questioning Scripture’s inerrancy, because my faith was built upon it. If I can’t believe everything in the Bible, why believe any of it? Why should any of it be true?
On the practical side, the discrepancies and contradictions contained in the modern Bible have been pointed out, and I can go learn about them and decide for myself what is important or unimportant, relevant or irrelevant. In spite of all the “errors”, the big picture remains the same and the Gospel is still the Gospel. And in my every day life I can trust the Holy Spirit to lead me into wisdom regarding how these things apply to me.
But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
Hey, that’s good enough for me.
……..If the Bible is wrong in one matter, we are uncertain that the Bible is right in another…..Therefore, giving license to a certain attitude that values ones opinion more the the words of God……..
I am not uncertain because most “contradictions” are really just “difficulties” of historical context or approximation. Thus, upholding the doctrine of inerrancy…….
[Comment ID #15015 Will Be Quoted Here]
Haaaaaaa!!!!
Let us hope!!!! Maybe God will give you the gift of discernment so that you can understand the truth that I speak:)
Or maybe it is just an upgraded vocabulary………..:):):)jk
You can’t make a serious argument for inerrancy by saying the alternative is more dangerous. The consequences of one or the other is irrelevant to whether or not they are true. It’s more important to know the truth and deal with the repercussions rather than living in a fantasy because it’s easier. There is always a heavier price to pay for living a lie.
[Comment ID #15018 Will Be Quoted Here]
Your circular logic here literally “begs the question”.
“The Bible says that Scripture is inerrant. The Bible is Scripture. Therefore the Bible is inerrant.”
But your statement is another logical fallacy(denying the antecedent).
“If the Bible is inerrant, the Bible contains Truth.”
“The Bible contains errors.”
“The Bible does not contain Truth.”
To imply that one’s beliefs in God and Scripture will suffer completely at the expense of rejecting the inerrancy of the Bible is the slippery-slope fallacy. “Eating a piece of candy will give you an eating disorder.”
None of these faulty reasonings are good ways of bolstering your argument.
I don’t think I can convince you in one day to change your beliefs about this. It’s obvious from your self-declared charismatic point of view that to change would undermine everything you believe in. I was in that place, too, as many of us here were as well. It was not without great difficulty and trauma to my belief system that I was able to change my point of view. God had to shake things up quite a bit for me so I know how uncomfortable that change can be. I hope and pray that you will listen carefully to the Holy Spirit and believe whatever you feel in your heart is the truth for you.
Also, implying that by doubting the inerrancy of God’s Word that I no longer value God’s Word over my own opinion is another logical fallacy. That’s like implying that if I disagree with you over the color of your new car (green-blue vs. blue-green?) then I must hate cars.
Hardy har har. Ya bone head.
Over the years as God has softened up this old heart with oil and wine, I have found myself moving out of my head and into my heart more. The head in my experience is continually trying to rationalize and dispell the feelings of the heart, thereby over ruling the leadings of the Spirit and making me of none effect for the Lord.
The impressive vocabulary I once had from years of working for Boeing as an aerospace analyst is now useless in that I’d rather be understood than impress people. Hungry’s complaints about my long posts are appreciated; often I’ve been able to say more in 3-4 verses of a song than in a yard-long blog post. I’m reminded of an e-group I ran years ago, there was just one rule (love one another) and the group was well behaved, until my dear departed friend Roger joined up and began using 10 dollar words. So I coined the “Roger rule” … “no using words like hermeneutics or exegesis or any other words that sound like some condition you’d see the proctologist or dermatologist for” …
Concerning discernment, I have a question for you. In John 6:63, Jesus said “My words are spirit and they are life; the flesh counts for nothing”. Do you consider “my words are spirit” a key to understanding scripture? If so, why do believers so often stop at face value of a scripture, rather than use the spritual gift of discernment to ferret out the deeper spiritual meaning of a passage?
Perhaps you do not understand what I mean by religion, cowboy. Religion to me is man’s attempt to reach God through works, philosophy, etc.; religion is man centered. Because “the Way” of the Lord is Christ-centered, and relies wholly on Him to bring us to the Father, I do not consider “the Way” a religion.
Thoughts?
Wow!!! I dont need a lecture on deductive reasoning when my words are utterly distorted:) Did you go to the dictionary to look up “antecedent”……:) Im proud of you!!!
I did not say that the Bible is untrue if and only if inerrancy is upheld….That is a superficial analysis….
I made a simple statement: If the Bible is false in one, then it is uncertain in all…………Unfortunately, I cannot develop the premises or logic because you will only twist words………
However, I do not question that you have a passion for God, and that I do respect!!!!!
[Comment ID #15021 Will Be Quoted Here]
I could not agree more!!! However, I never said that this was a “basis” for my argument………….It is a theological bias grounded in philosophical language……
I have very good reasons to believe that “inerrancy” can be authentically and reasonably argued- I have yet to get there!!!!
Man, you people really like to “spin” words……I have a suggestion: read more carefully!!!
[Comment ID #15026 Will Be Quoted Here]
I said it gave “license” to think in a certain way…..To permit is fundamentally different than to make/force…..Hence, you misunderstood my implication
Jack,
Did I hit a nerve……..:)
[Comment ID #15039 Will Be Quoted Here]
No sweetie, you didn’t.
Why didn’t you answer my question about John 6:63?
(I think you meant to say “true” not “untrue”?)
I don’t see how my analysis of your statement is superficial when I just apply logic to it. But your stance of “if the Bible is untrue in one area, we are uncertain if it is true at all, therefore I prefer to think it is inerrant” says just that! If you can’t allow errors to say the Bible is true you are implying that truth requires perfection. If you are denying you said that, then are you willing to admit the Bible could contain truth in spite of errors? Which is it?
I promise to try really hard to understand you if you make a logical argument. You can even correct me if I make a logical fallacy. I make mistakes.
Thank you, the feeling is mutual!
Everyone has the “license” to think or say whatever they want. That doesn’t make it logical.
My point is that the statement “questioning the inerrancy of the Bible causes people to reject the truth in it, therefore we must consider it inerrant” is not a logical basis for upholding (propping up) it’s inerrancy. It’s true that some people reject the Gospel because it is “just a book written by old dudes”. That doesn’t change the truth of the Gospel and God will still judge them based on it.
I will admit I am confused by this statement. On the one hand you admit your personal bias – fair enough. But on the other hand you claim it is grounded in philosophical language, yet in most of philosophical studies, it would seem the standard to judge arguments is the one of logic. I don’t think it’s fair to argue a preference and use logic only when it works in your favor. “My favorite color is blue because the sky is blue, therefore, everyone’s favorite color should be blue.” To argue the inerrancy of the Bible because you prefer it over the alternative is not very logical or philosophical. And that is my bias based on philosophical language!
Haaaaaaaa…… I know you are trying hard to be a philosopher but please stop twisting my words-
Again, I never said if the Bible is untrue about a matter, then I am uncertain in all, so I prefer inerrancy- what post are you reading………..!?!
I said if the Bible is false in one, then what logically entails is uncertainty- It might be true, it might be false. Therefore, we must suspend judgment about the issue of its “truthfulness” or “inerrancy”. Thats it!!! Hence, the agnosticism!!! You can go back and look at my analogy that assumes, at the least, to make the point………
The expedient, chalking everything up to “faith”, however might ironically be the undoing of “faith”……..If we take the the transcendent material, the doctrine of God and so on, out of the realm of refutation, can anything count for it??? One cannot say it is true or say it is false because of the premise of uncertainty. It is analogous to a “someone” asserting that purple, invisible elephants rule the world. How do we measure such a statement? We cannot!!! Why? Because we cannot empirically measure or test invisible elephants. One logically must suspend opinion on the such a proposition………It can be argued, as logical positivist did, that the proposition has no merit or meaning because it cannot be tested……Thus, any counterexample is hard to come by….
Please read more carefully!!! I did not say, “false in one, false in all”, I did say, “false in one, uncertain in all”………On the other hand, I have many reasons to believe that inerrancy can be justified…..
I must assume you have not taken a introductory course on philosophy, right?
Your words are getting “twisted” because your posts are difficult to understand. Isn’t the clarity of your message more important than flaunting your vast vocabulary? We’re communicating ideas, not playing scrabble.
So when are you going to give these very good reasons to justify inerrancy?
Actually, I did take several philosophy courses in college, including one term in logical arguments. But it was a long time ago, so I may need your help if I get it wrong.
1) Are you saying that Biblical innerrancy is equated with Biblical truth?
2) Are you saying that our modern Bible is inerrant only in as much it is accurate with the originals?
3) If we do not have the originals for testing the accuracy, then how can you justify the idea that the copy is inerrant?
4) Are you saying that you admit there are indeed “discrepancies” in the copies?
5) What do you mean by “the variants are infinitesimally fixed”? Are you saying we have clearly identified all the errors? How can you prove this?
6) If Textual Criticism is a sufficiently worked science and this science is responsible for identifying the discrepancies, then how does that give evidence for an inerrant original? Are you saying that “we” are smart enough to know that they don’t matter?
7) Isn’t “suspending judgment” the same as “not believing” in this case?
Good ‘un.
Used to be when I couldn’t sleep, I read the dictionary. Now I just read cowboy’s posts.
The one Pastor’s wife’s view that I would love to see is Lois Cotton’s viewpoint of why Doug Cotton is no longer Senior Pastor of CLF in Aberdeen.
I would pay money to read that one.
You are alittle “rusty”, but thank you for your honesty……..
Jack this next post will be really difficult for you, so try to keep up!! I know your sensitive so I will try and keep it short…..jk
There are “seven” theological positions: Limited inerrancy, full inerrancy, absolute inerrancy, pragmatic inerrancy, nonpropositional inerrancy, “irrelevent” inerrancy, and those that disregard inerrancy alltogether…………
I believe in a “full” inerrancy for the following reasons:
1. The propositions of the Bible should be measured according to their purpose. For example, lets say I grossed 25,465.22 last year; meanwhile, a friend asked me how much I made. If I said “25,000″, have I told the truth? Yes!!! I have approximated my gross income. However, if I was audited and I approximated my income, have I told the truth? No!! Some scholars point out that Numbers 25:9 contradicts 1 Cor10:8 because the numbers are different by a 1000…….If the the Bible was a military document that required specificity then it would be false; however, the Bible is something radically different: it is a book that tells a story….Its purpose is to give an idea of the narrative; therefore, its approximations are true- just like friends who tell the truth by approximating their gross income…..this also applies to the chronological and historical content of the Bible
2. The writers report events as is, historical and scientific!! For example, the Bible makes no attempts to be scientifically exact, the author merely reports what is seen……..The Bible uses popular language; rather than technically exact words. Thus, the purpose of the Bible is to report the event accurately by the use of popular language…… Weatherman frequently use idioms to describe weather-related events. For instance, the sun will rise at such and such a time, yet is this a technically exact statement? No!!! We all know the sun does not rise; the earth simply moves……..but this idiomatic expression is accepted and used frequently by meteorologists. In fact, scientific centers use these expressions, yet they do not take it literally…..Likewise, the Bible is not a textbook of scientific exactness, nonetheless the Bible tells the story exactly……
3. What the Bible affirms is true in its culture…….the Biblical culture is drastically different than “ours”…..Hence, the need to resist the temptation to “standarized” it….We cannot place the same ”emphasis” on exactness because of “our” technically advanced ethos. In other words, exact quotations helped by technical advance cannot be applied to a Biblical world. However, the Bible does speak the truth in its historical context!!!
Those are my preliminary thoughts and assist as a primer on inerrancy; however, there is so much more but I am afraid that I will become long-winded like Jack…
So please read carefully!!! I made it very simple………..Ok!?! I think you guys can do it…….jk
Well, at least you can count to 7 …
OK – so you consider the Bible “fully inerrant” because it is numerically, chronologically and historically approximate …
OK
Gee, I wonder who it was who wrote previously about the need to examine scripture from a historical and cultural viewpoint?
It seems like you are saying that since we have used popular terminology and have re-interpreted the Bible in accordance with our culture and the established religious system, that the current translations of the Bible are errant?
You make a good case for the original scriptures, in Hebrew, Aramaic and / or Greek as inerrant 2000 years ago … what about NOW in this culture and popular english translations?
You may need to coin an 8th position there cowgurrrrlll, such as “essentially inerrant” or “gistfully inerrant”
Love you too, babe.
Jack
Uh, Cowpoke, the original scriptures (2000-4000 years old) are not the same as modern Bibles (0-400 years old). You can not make the case for an inerrant Bible (modern english translations) based on scripture (foreign language originals). Such would be an illogical leap of faith in the translators to have preserved what you call numerical, cultural, historical, chronological, linguistic accuracy from one one culture, one language, etc., to another.
The discussion is BIBLE inerrancy, not scripture inerrancy. Surely you know the difference?
‘Scrupe
Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions…
1. I wonder how the IRS would feel if I approximated my taxable income?
“I made 25,000 this year.”
“But your W2 says you made 30,000 this year.”
“Oh, that was just an approximation. My tax return is ‘fully’ inerrant.”
“I’m not sure you know what ‘fully’ means, but we can probably approximate a year in prison for you.”
So, it’s OK to consider the Bible inerrant because it is just an approximation? Which part of it then is exact and which part is approximated? 10%? 90%? If I can’t know which part is approximated then that makes the rest suspect and uncertain, leading to agnosticism. Hey, that was your argument not mine.
2. Exactness (or the lack thereof) does not equate to accuracy or truth. But that is not a logical argument for supposing that the Bible is inerrant.
3. So Biblical truth was true only when it was given? Is it any less true now? How does the passage of time affect truth? If we don’t use the same language, culture, idioms, etc. can we still apply that truth to today? Your argument confuses me because it sounds like the Bible was only inerrant when it was given, and not now. Is that what you’re saying? If so, is the Bible of any value today? But then we are back to point 1 aren’t we? How can we trust an approximation?
My logic may be a bit “rusty”, but so far all of your reasons seem to be rationalizations for a premise that you can’t logically support. As you so clearly stated earlier, anything that cannot be proved cannot be argued logically. I would argue that it is impossible to prove that the Bible is inerrant because the premise cannot be tested. Firstly, you are not God, nor can you ask God specifically if any part of the Bible is inerrant. Secondly, we do not have the original texts to examine, let alone judge their accuracy or truthfulness. We can never know if the Bible (or Scripture if you want to play games with words) is (or ever was) inerrant.
Suppose we assume that the Bible (or Scripture) is inerrant. Because we cannot know if that is true or not, then what does that mean to us? At best it is the kind of “irrelevant” inerrancy because I cannot live my life on an unprovable assumption, even if it could be true.
[Comment ID #15415 Will Be Quoted Here]
HAAAAAAAAAAA…….Theologians have discussed this very issue of inerrancy………It is a salient argument!!! The difficulty is a “surly” ingorance exhibited in your “talk”………….You crack me up!!!!!!
Where did you go to school??? Hmmmmmmmmm………YOU need to back “little” guy……………….
[Comment ID #15821 Will Be Quoted Here]
Cowboy, I was being nice before, albeit tongue-in-cheek. If you’re not willing to address an argument with anything other than insulting our intelligence (i.e. telling us we’re not educated, logical, etc.) and completely ignoring questions directed at yourself or your point of view, then I think I am done discussing this with you. Have a nice day.
Cowboy – I’m surprised you don’t you remember me. I was your professor at Whatsamatta U.
‘Scrupe
[Comment ID #16020 Will Be Quoted Here]
NOW I remember!!! You are the guy who stammered……………..Professor can it really be you? Forgive me I have been so wrong to judge you….. You just cant help yourself!!!!!
[Comment ID #16001 Will Be Quoted Here]
I agree!!!! I will be more charitable………..when I get the time I will discuss inerrancy more…….It has been a terribly “busy” weekend; morever, I will answer Your questions specifically…………………
Cowboy, check this out.
Sam
[Comment ID #16058 Will Be Quoted Here]
Haaaaaa!!! That is probably true……………………
[Comment ID #16058 Will Be Quoted Here]
Too funny!
To “Norm†and “Another BT product of the 80′sâ€, and perhaps others…
I have been approached privately, regarding my posts to each of you, that those posts may have mislead you, and left impressions others know I did not intend to leave, because they know my belief system. The concern is that the things I shared could have left an inaccurate perception of the New Testament teachings regarding the seriousness of sin and its eternal ramifications.
Because these issues are so important I would like to take a few moments to clarify the position I take, because your souls are so important, and because incorrect communications can lead to exposing the soul to unnecessary dangers.
First, let me say that it is not my intention to preach at you, or present myself as your judge. What I write this morning is born out of love for you, as well as a desire to bring clarity on the position I hold and the position I believe the bible takes, on the subject of sin.
Rather than reference homosexuality throughout this entry, I will only make a few comments regarding it, but will mainly focus on the issue of sin itself, since it is sin that is the primary issue, and not any one specific sin in question.
Let me return to a passage of scripture I posted in an earlier blog entry:
1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
In this passage Paul says several very important things:
1. The unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God.
This actually tells us two things. First, even though Jesus has died for all mankind’s sin, it is not a given that the benefits of His death will be applied to all mankind, because second, some of those whom He has died for will not inherit the kingdom of God.
This is critically important. Obviously the issue of homosexuality is mentioned in this passage, but, in contradiction to the way some here have handled this matter, we need to note that it is not in all CAPS as though it were the worst sin of all mentioned here. Sin is sin, and unless it has been cleansed by His blood, repented of, and turned away from, the one sinning any of these sins is in great peril – missing the kingdom of God.
I know some within the homosexual community believe Paul was addressing a culture that has long ago disappeared, and that if he were alive with us today he would qualify at least, if not remove, his reference to homosexuality. I don’t know this would be the case, so I won’t speak for him. There are others who believe Paul’s words only apply to those who “choose†to be a homosexual, and that many today believe this too would be wrong, but that because some are “born†homosexual in orientation Paul’s words do not apply to them. Once again, I don’t know Paul would say this, so I won’t speak for him. I only know he includes it here and in Romans chapter 1, in a way that clearly implies he sees no qualifications of culture or physiology. Once again, I’m not anybody’s judge on these matters. I only note what these passages say.
So, since Paul makes no qualification, and because the consequences to unrepented sin are so serious, the counsel I have given to every practicing homosexual I have counseled with, is two fold – 1) It appears to be sin, please repent of it, and learn to walk in the Spirit so as not to return to the practice of this sin. 2) Even if you find you never have any desires for the opposite sex, allow the Spirit to help you find joy as a single person, while honoring your commitment to righteousness.
I do not share this glibly, unawares of the agony this may cause for those who believe themselves to be homosexual. I know it will be extremely difficult. I believe Christ will help with that agony, but not always to the complete removal of the agony.
Returning to the Corinthians passage:
2. All of the sins of this passage need washing, sanctification, and justification from, in the name of Jesus Christ, and by the Spirit of God.
None need more washing, etc. None appear to be considered worse by Paul. All need the same things, but all NEED these things. I place my own personal sins, that needed these things prior to salvation, right along side all of those mentioned in this passage. Sin is sin, and all needs the same work of Christ applied to them.
3. I also note the “past tense†element, in Paul’s words.
Wash “edâ€, sanctifi “edâ€, justifi “edâ€. The clear implication is that for the person taking seriously these sins, they become something of their past. Does this mean if one ever sinned in any of these areas again he would automatically lose his salvation? Since salvation is not by works I would conclude the answer to that question is “no.†But, conversely, the clear implication of his words are that anyone “choosing†to continue to “practice†any of these sins, shows that he has not truly repented, seen these sins the way Jesus does, and is choosing to walk in a manner that embraces sin rather than forsakes it, and in all of the apostles theology this is evidence of an unsaved person; a person not born again, not washed, not sanctified, and not justified.
Because it is not my place to stand in Jesus’ place as judge, I don’t get into arguments over these matters. I love everyone…sinner and saint, but I must be honest with what I see here, and express as accurately as I know, the message of the New Testament.
4. Will not inherit the kingdom of God.
What does this mean? I’m not much of one to utilize the Jonathan Edwards approach to getting people to submit to Christ, I.e. the, hang a man over the fires of hell, approach. Somehow this does not seem to me to fit the apostles approach to the seriousness of unrepentant sin. Yet, they are quick to indicate the loss of the kingdom of Heaven is a very real consequence.
Does this mean if one does not inherit the kingdom of God he automatically inherits eternal damnation in Hell? There are three major theories on this:
1) Hell is an endless period of unimaginable torment, as a result of rejecting the work of Christ on a person’s behalf.
2) Hell is not endless, but it will stretch out for a great length of time, and ultimately end up in complete annihilation – I.e. no longer exist in any state of being anywhere for eternity.
3) Hell is not a proper term of the New Testament, to describe the endless place of abiding for those who have not received Christ’s work on their behalf in this life. They believe it is better to describe it as a place of temporal judgment, from which everyone will ultimately accept the correction of the Judge of the Universe, and finally accept the work of Christ on their behalf. In other words, all will receive endless second chances, though the agonies of judgment imply that it is not worth going through this, when salvation in this life would have delivered a person from such punishment and judgment.
Number one is the historically accepted position by Orthodox believers. Number two is held by a far lesser number of theologians. Number three is historically considered an heretical doctrine.
Which one is correct? I truly do not know. After hundreds of hours of study, all three have some merit to them. I have concluded God purposely left out some theological and biblical pieces that could have created a fully justifiable dogmatism. Because I see no biblical evidence of “any†kind of a 2nd chance process in heaven, I’m disinclined to believe this, but I will ultimately leave it up to the Lord.
What He did not leave out is the very clear – DO NOT LEAVE THIS LIFE UNSAVED message. Because missing out on knowing Jesus, and missing out on the kingdom of heaven is so serious, even if there is a 2nd chance, the process of judgment, punishment, confrontation, and missing the joys of the kingdom make it not worth it. And, if the punishment turns out to be endless, then such a state of being is beyond imagination horrible. Therefore, no matter what position one holds, making the decision settled in this life is the only thing that makes any sense at all. Hoping for another chance on the other side is incredibly unwise.
I only mentioned, in previous blogs, the theory, and seeming experience of Ian McCormack, and others, of there “possibly†being a 2nd chance in the presence of Christ on the other side, because it infuriates me to have bible believing Christians use the bible to bash gays, in a manner that is unbecoming to the message of Christ, and treats homosexuality as if it were the worst sin of all history. I do not think this is the manner we are to use to impart the Gospel. If, in using Ian’s story, or in any of my other comments, I left you or anyone else the impression that I believe homosexuality is not a sin that needs to be repented of, then I apologize, and I am rectifying that here. I do not correct this because I’m afraid of body of Christ reprisals, loss of ministry, or anything like this. I do this because I love and value your souls, and do not wish to say anything that could encourage you to continue in any sin for another moment, to say nothing of risking the kingdom of heaven for.
I do not know for certain how things will play out on the other side, but I do believe we must only think of there being one chance, and that one chance is in this life alone. I do believe homosexuality is a sin to be repented of, and an issue that a believer in Christ must learn to walk in the Spirit concerning, so as to overcome all manifestations of that sin, just like any other sin. I do not believe occasional failure equals loss of salvation, but I do believe it, as in any other sin that besets our lives, must be met with confession, repentance, and fresh commitment to walking in the Spirit again.
If this sounds demeaning or condescending then it is only because of my lack of ability to communicate in a manner that completely avoids that. It is not my intention to demean anyone. I wish only to clarify the position I hold, and to encourage all men and women everywhere to accept the work of Christ for their lives, turn away from every sin the New Testament calls sin, and learn to walk in the Spirit for full victory.
If I have still left things unclear here I invite questions, but I refuse to engage in hostile debate, as being unworthy of the love and discretion of Christ.
I do hope this clarification helps, and once again, I apologize for the length of this post, but I felt my prior lack of clarity necessitated it.
Well, I didn’t read all the preceding comments, but merely scrolled down to throw my 2 cents in the pot.
I am a woman who went to a public university, had a very secularized upbringing. I had become quite feministic and liberal. As I have grown to know the Lord more and more, I am appreciating all of the definitions of a woman as detailed by Brother Paul. I am so thankful to know my role at home, at church, in the world, as a member of Christ’s body. It gives me a certain rest. Where before I was reaching and straining in one direction, the word of God has given me a rest to instead flourish in another direction.
Although Jesus says that male and female are the same SPIRITUALLY, however, as I read the gospels, I note his treating women differently than men to a degree. (He only rebukes one female Martha, but was rebuking males right and left!) The disciple did say that women are the weaker vessel. Tis true, and I want my husband to treat me as such. In his worldly way for so long he has looked to me to mimic his role. It has been tiresome to say the least. However, over time, by my standing in my role, God has caused him to appreciate “the role of a woman, a mother and a wife.” He grew up with just his mom and always saw women fill both pairs of shoes.
Anyway, enough about me.
There is a difference. I cling to the verse that says women are saved in childbearing. Well, hallelujah! I believe it. I did not have any idea what a precious thing I was to God because I was a woman and therefore under my husband and also under my children in a way and in that way I think God rewards me now and later for serving. (not that I’m not still a parent to my children)
Whoever asked about heads being covered: Let me just say that I just recently began to understand about the head covering. I remember when I was a child the women would wear those fancy hats to church, sometimes doilies, but I never knew the significance. Well, anyway, recently, I started tying my hair up all the time because of what I read about kosher dress and what they believe about the hair and it also backed up what Paul was talking about with the angels and such. So, YES! I would love for that to be the nation wide custom, but as it is possible for me to do so, I am thankful to know about this and oblige. (Although I have it heard it taught that this cover is only for praying, whatever) I usually keep silent in the church anyway, aside from a few forced amens and “tell yo’ neybors”, etc.
I agree with those that addressed the problem with lack of male leadership due to the women out of place, so to speak. Tis true tis true indeed. Even our Lord told the woman to first go get her husband. Someone raised and EXCELLENT point about choosing another male to replace the 12th disciple position. Also when he choose his inner circle to go to the mount where he was transformed (can’t think of the word right now, been up all night) He chose 2 males. UHHHHHHH. . .he definitely did NOT view women same as men. However, he looked at women and men with the same love. Definitely not in a mysognistic or chauvinist way, which I think is the big difference that was unusual and hard for many at that time to understand.
Whatever role the woman is to have in the church is not to supercede or substitute for the role outlined in any scripture. Let’s face it, the church is FLESH. However, God considers a woman’s prayer in no way less than a mans.When we pray and prophesy and all that, it is spirit, but outside of those moments, we’re just fleshy people
I love my children equally, but they have their different chores assigned, which is largely based on what their more suited for.
g’night or morn’ i’m shutting down.
oh! One more thing, we have more than Paul’s words for it. Even Peter(who had a wife, apparently) said that in the same way a slave is to submit to a master, so also the wife to her husband. Now, this is the best thing we can do. We shouldn’t be stained by the world; we should be different, by loving one another and also being obedient to the written word.
Now, having said all that, if GOD called me to preach, hey, I’m READY!