Comments on: Jesus Christ Is The Word of God (part 2)

By: simcah

simcah — Sat, 12 Mar 2011 17:54:32 +0000

Interesting posts. A Facebook friend of mine linked to this article.

I have toyed with these ideas myself, though I have not yet come to any conclusions, and I’m afraid just talking about such ideas would earn me some persecution from my present church friends. Not only that, but I am aware of damage that can be done to people’s faith simply by suggesting that the Bible is not infallible. People keep vigilant guard over their paradigmatic fortress and, rightly so, because should a seed of doubt get inside the walls, the whole thing might be destroyed from the inside out. But I think for anyone to truly find wisdom and truth and go beyond the norm, their paradigms must be challenged by destructive doubts. In the process, they may realize that some parts of their paradigmatic fortress were built on a faulty foundation and should be rebuilt differently.

I’ve come to the point in my walk with God, where I believe that even if the Bible were not 100% factually inerrant, my faith would not be shaken because I’ve realized that if we simply take everything in the Spirit in which it was written, we find the truth and the life there.

Perhaps the doctrine of infallibility is correct, or perhaps it is not, but rather is useful as a parent to a child. What I mean is that it behooves a child in his early years not to question a parent, but rather simply obey. But once that child matures, he must learn to distinguish right from wrong on his own, and in doing so he may find that although his parents did the best they could, they were still human. Perhaps many people would not become children of God were it not for the doctrine of infallibility, but then perhaps that doctrine keeps them children and hinders their spiritual maturation beyond a certain point.

Anwyays, keep up the good writing!
-Brandon

By: Grant

Grant — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 14:57:13 +0000

Pentecostalism seeks the Holy Spirit’s guidance but tosses out orthodox interpretation of the written word in favor of dubious fads. Catholicism has its Magisterium and its dubious traditions. Traditional Protestantism theoretically seeks sola scriptura, but adds a truck load of Pharisaic do’s and don’ts to rival the man-made rules of Catholicism. We must start somewhere, and all our traditions and fads are probably 80% wrong in what they teach. If we start with Jesus and what he taught and try not to venture too far from that we find remarkable unity and agreement.

By: mikeraburn

mikeraburn — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 17:42:21 +0000

I don’t agree that the Bible is a list of do’s and don’ts. I think we can turn it into that with wrong interpretation, but that is our fault, not the text’s. If you read the Sermon on the Mount closely, you can see that a lot of what Jesus is doing there is correcting the misinterpretation the Jewish religious leaders had placed on the Law. In doing this Jesus is not departing from the old, right interpretation for some new, right interpretation. He was saying that the old interpretation got it wrong, his way is not a new way, it was the only way all along. This agrees both with what Isaiah says of the people’s lack of obedience to the Law (despite their ceremonial participation), and what Paul explains (in Galatians) about even Abraham being saved by faith. The way Jesus taught is the only proper way to read Scripture.

So I am not saying the Bible is unimportant or to be marginalized. Quite the contrary. I am saying that it is so important, so critical to the life of the church, the body of Christ, that we can only trust Jesus to interpret it correctly for us. Any interpretation that does not begin and end with Jesus is bound to go wrong. You can only understand the word of God through the person named The Word of God.

By: Caleb Murdock

Caleb Murdock — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 13:55:34 +0000

Let me add that since mistakes are a necessary part of spiritual growth, the mistakes we make are part of the perfection. And since learning to live intelligently is part of our spiritual growth, perfection extends to the mistakes we make in daily living, not just in our spiritual life. Thus, evil (which to me is good which has gone awry) is part of the perfection. You see, there is no sin.

By: Caleb Murdock

Caleb Murdock — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 11:23:21 +0000

My religious views fall into the “New Age” category, although I dislike that term. There are answers to what you said, though I would have to write pages to fully explain it. Essentially, good and evil, perfection and imperfection, do not exist in the way that we perceive them. They appear to be so real because of the “root assumptions” (or natural laws or “default rules”) of this plane of existence, and also because of the materialistic place that man has evolved to. For example, the victim of a murder will have chosen at a deep level to be murdered, but will survive the murder to live many times again, so no real harm has been done. The greatest harm is done to the murderer, who has made a poor choice and must unlearn that behavior (possibly by being murdered himself in a future life). I know that these notions are far afield from anything that you believe, but my point is that there are explanations for what appears to be sin. Essentially, everything is perfect as it exists, though it may appear imperfect and sinful. That state of perfection is possible because nothing in the universe is ever lost or destroyed — at least, not after you step outside the root assumptions of any given plane of existence. A side note: The psychic Jane Roberts, who channeled the Seth Material, said that Jesus’ teachings about reincarnation were expunged from the gospels because they were too controversial. Jane Roberts didn’t just talk about Jesus, she described God, God’s origins, and the Creation.

By: mikeraburn

mikeraburn — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 05:57:35 +0000

Caleb,
Thanks for the comments. I think the idea of inerrancy is paralyzing when it comes to reading and understanding the Bible, it makes it difficult, if not impossible, to appreciate the richness that the Bible does have to offer.
The Christian idea of sin really goes back to the Hebrew idea of fallenness. You mention the natural imperfection of humanity, which sounds like a very similar view of where we are as a race, except that the Jewish/Christian take would say that it is not a natural state at all, but one we degraded to. If our race was created good, but fell, that explains why we know something is not right about our race (how else would we know?) and it makes more sense if you start from the idea of a perfect Creator. A Creator that makes imperfect creatures makes less sense (at least to some).
I know this is a different view, one that most religions don’t have any parallel for, and one that many people find hard to accept. But we know things aren’t the way they should be, and we know that we humans are the cause of that a lot of the time, so fallenness/sin does offer a possible explanation for that.
Anyway, thanks for the dialogue, I really appreciate it.
Mike

By: Caleb Murdock

Caleb Murdock — Fri, 01 Jan 2010 16:27:15 +0000

I love both of these articles. They are so thoughtful and insightful, not anything like what I usually hear from devoted Christians. As a non-Christian, I’ve come to see Christians as falling into two groups: The Christians and then the Biblists. The Biblists seem more interested in scripture than in Jesus. My question for them is: Is it Jesus you really love, or is it just the Rules? As an outsider, I have to say that the Bible cannot be the word of God. The reasons are obvious: It is an assemblage of disparate documents, written by and assembled by human beings. Yes, it should be taken as a guide to one’s faith, and yes, it is the best source of information about Jesus. But given its scattered origins, it is just not reasonable to believe that there is anything inerrant about it. If the Bible is inerrant, then it is not possible to grow beyond it — and life without growth isn’t life. It may be a cliche to say this, but God gave us minds and expects us to use them. I like the idea of the Holy Spirit, although I don’t believe in sin. I see the Christian concept of sin as a metaphor for humanity’s natural state of imperfection.

By: Jes

Jes — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 21:15:14 +0000

Mike,
I have to say that I’m so glad that this is well written. It’s always really hard to get one’s ideas across when one can’t use proper grammar or verbs.
This made me think about a lot, and some I’d like to share later this evening. Thank you for putting out there something honest, and respectfully holding your opinion.

By: Adam Baker

Adam Baker — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 18:55:41 +0000

Mike,
I found myself grinning like a madman while reading both Parts 1 and 2 – great, honest questions and an earnest, loving challenge to search out answers without lapsing immediately into easily ‘defendable’ positions. The responses (gracious and loving as they have been, even when not standing in complete agreeance with you) have encouraged me, as well – no need for ‘defense’ against Brothers and Sisters in Christ who are simply seeking to understand one another as best they’re able. Keep processing ‘out loud’, Brother – it’s a pleasure to read your thoughts.
in Jesus,
Adam

By: mikeraburn

mikeraburn — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 10:57:48 +0000

James,
Thanks for the thoughtful reply (and for reading my post multiple times – don’t you have anything else to do:) ). You’re right, I dodged the question a bit, so allow me to be more direct.
I think “is the Bible inerrant?” is the wrong question to ask; there is no good answer, because the question already presupposes a misunderstanding of what Scripture is and how it is to operate in our lives. It is not a magic book with superpowers. It is the book where God speaks most clearly to us, but anyone who takes listening to God seriously knows that we don’t always hear well or inerrantly. So, whether the text is inerrant or not doesn’t help me get it right, because I am never reading the text, I am always reading my interpretation of the text, and hopefully receiving what the Spirit has for me at that time.
And, yes, this is relative in a way that makes us uncomfortable. As I said in the post, we want things we can own, possess, and control. But God and God’s Word are never under our control. We need to let go of the idea of control. It has led to sin since Adam and Eve tried it.
Relative also means different people will come to different conclusions based on Scripture. You mentioned women in ministry, which was the issue that initially set me off. But there has been at least one instance where women were supposed to “keep quiet” in the churches – Corinth. Paul must have had his reasons for telling them this. But the response we should be making to that passage is not to ban women from speaking – it is to ask the Lord to show us those times when we should keep silent in the church. The Lord could tell all the men to hush, or all the adults, or all the wealthy people. We single out women because we fail to see the principle at work here.
I hope this makes sense. Help me be more clear if it’s not.
Mike