Maybe you've heard this. "The Bible is not a rule book." Or something like it. I've heard it from two different directions. One comes from the liberal side which argues that the Bible doesn't tell us what's right or wrong and the other comes from the antinomian side -- the Pauline Dispensationalists and the like -- who argue that "We're saved by grace, so works are beside the point." The antinomians argue that rules are irrelevant and we don't have to work and the liberals argue that the rules are irrelevant because we all know what to do (except, of course, this is always offered when we are disagreeing about what's right and wrong).
It cannot be argued with any validity that the Bible is not a rule book. A rule book defines the standards of behavior expected in a particular sphere. Scripture is full of instructions. They are always either explicitly or implicitly premised on "Because God said so", but are often also built on "Given this set of truths, how then should we behave?" Further, given that the Bible is God's Word, there is clearly an effort made on the part of God's inspiration to the writers to impart God's ideas of what is right and wrong and how we should and should not behave. It is unavoidable.
So those who argue that we cannot derive instructions for living -- standards of behavior expected in the sphere of a Christian worldview -- seem to be arguing for something else. What is it? The antinomian is arguing that there are no standards. This is a problematic argument because they make "no standards" a standard which, if you claim otherwise, you are violating. But the other side is arguing for, in the final analysis, something very odd. They're arguing for atheist morality. What do I mean by that? They argue that we know what is right and wrong without input from God. God doesn't tell us; we just figure it out. There is an underlying premise in it that God either cannot or will not make such demands, and a second premise that we are "good enough" to figure it out rightly on our own (compare Jer 17:9). "Wrong" is doing harm, and we know what "harm" is (despite the repeated failures of humankind to anticipate harm). We know what "good" is (even if it conflicts with what God, "the judge of all the earth" (Gen 18:25), says it is. Oddly, it puts them in the driver's seat of morality as if they're much better at figuring out how the human being works than the Maker is. It's odd because it comes from folk who claim to love God.
Look, I'm sure they'll keep saying it. Both sides. But don't you listen. It is true; we are not saved by works. We are saved by faith. "Sola fide" is the phrase -- "by faith alone". But not by faith that is alone. God is just, which means that He is right. He is absolutely correct in what He commands and forbids. And neither the antinomian nor the liberal can change that. Standing with one of them against God is neither safe nor right. The rules won't save you, but anyone who actually loves Christ will keep His commandments. Oh, wait ... I think someone else said that (John 14:15).
8 comments:
Stan,
I've drawn a couple of conclusions about the "Bible is not a rule book" phenomenon as well.
While the Bible is not a "rule book" per se, it is certainly full of rules.
I think the use of the term "rules' is intentional. It lowers God's commands to the same level as the rules for Monopoly. How often have you played a game with more than one group of people only to find that each has their own particular "rules"? If it is possible to lower the Bible to simply a rule book, which can be adapted at will by anyone, then it essentially becomes nothing.
It also seems that the correct term(s) should be; commandments, edicts, ordinances, or laws, not "rules". Rules get written by some schmuck at the game factory. It almost seems demeaning to reduce that King of Kings to writing a "rule book". Kings don't make rules, they rule.
Ultimately, this is just one more way to take God off of His rightful throne, and diminish His authority.
And of course, those who say the Bible is not a rule book, strangely act in a manner suggesting rules, even if they are not of the type that they are willing to spell out. One sad sack speaks of Scripture as a book of truths. But any truth is itself a hard, fast rule, which is what makes it true. That is, if you live by the "truth", you are living by a rule. The point, of course, is to provide license to ignore rules that are inconvenient.
What's more, if there are no "rules" for living, then how can these people dare speak at all about how anyone else lives? It's all personal opinion and desire dressed up in false Christianity.
Very good point, Craig. Calling them "rules" is demeaning. Interestingly, those who generally say such things are quite sure "We know the 'rules' and you obviously don't ... nor can we rely on the Bible for such things."
Marshall, in the instances I've heard where they complain about it not being a "rule book", the implication is "We know what's good and don't need God or His Word to tell us." Of course, at this point it ends up very much like Craig's Monopoly analogy where everyone has their own certainties on the subject.
Ouch, Stan, I guess Dan really took you to school.
"Rather, we are saying that we each need to strive to do the right and avoid the wrong, because we are each reasonable, moral agents."
Which, of course, simply reinforces a point I've made often. This is that in the world of liberal christians, everything revolves around them and their ability and Reason, and not on the saving work of Christ.
It's a school in which I don't appear to be learning much.
I'm fascinated by the denial that appears to be an agreement. Is "We are each reasonable, moral agents" different than my characterization? (Or yours.)
It's a quote from Dan. He is arguing, in effect, that there is no knowable objective standard and that each individual is responsible for figuring things out on their own.
In my opinion, this type of quote is a great example of how in that world it all revolves around the "I" or "We". In effect the philosophy is that no objective transcendent "morality" (or Right or Good or pick your word) exists, so it's up to us to stumble along and hope we get things right. My problems with this start with the fact that it is essentially a works type of system where everything depends on us. Then they move to the fact that it elevates humanity to the final arbiter and minimizes the work of Christ. Finally, it shows that way that Dan in particular elevates Reason to some level of almost objectivity. As you read his writings it is almost as if he sees Reason as the vehicle of salvation.
It's a strange almost homocentric form of christianity witch baffles me, but in our current culture seems to fit right in.
Obvioulsy, this is
I got that it was from Dan. Odd that he can't see what is said.
1. "You don't get to tell me what's right or wrong. I can figure it out for myself. (Of course, I do get to tell you what's right or wrong when you disagree with me.)"
2. "We don't need the Bible to tell us what God wants. I can figure this out on my own."
3. "One thing we know; the Bible is wrong when it tells me what I know is good is evil or is evil is good."
(For clarification, those are not quotes from anyone. They are the rational ideas being derived from that position. Lest anyone complain that I'm misrepresenting them.)
Post a Comment