Of course, modern Christians are often in disagreement on this point. Modern Christians (self-professed) might consider themselves "religious, but without all that Bible nonsense." They would think it's a good book and all that, but let's not get carried away. I can write about "Christians" and "biblical Christians" and no one really questions the distinction because there are self-professed Christians who are "people of the Book" and self-professed Christians who are not. Settled in the early days of Christendom, one of the hottest (in terms of emotion as well as popularity) contentions these days is the reliability of the Christian Bible.
It's not just Christians who have this disagreement. Modern Jews are largely not "people of the Book." Indeed, many modern Jews are Jewish in heritage only. Their Bible disagrees with them as it does with modern Christians who are not biblical Christians.
The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever. (Isa 40:8)The disagreement among self-professing Christians centers around just a couple of issues, I think. The first is common to most -- Jew and Christian. "I'm the decider of what is true and right." Like a kid who tells an adult, "You're not the boss of me!", we aren't really happy about some book written thousands of years ago telling us what is and is not true, what is and is not right. It's common to hear complaints like, "What did they know about modern issues like gender or loving relationships between two people of the same sex?" It carries over to other issues, too, of course, but you understand. Life was different then. Why would we expect the Bible to have any reasonable or useful input now? The second very common problem is that of translation and interpretation. On one hand this is a valid concern. We have certainly seen (continue to see) our share of bad translations and even interpretations. (The New World Translation springs to mind for bad translation and anything interpreted à la Joel Olsteen is a suspect interpretation -- two quick examples.)
I think everything else breaks down under those two complaints. "The Bible was written by men and shouldn't be the final word on all things Christian." That's still under the first category. "The Bible isn't a book of rules." Still that first category. "There are so many differences of interpretation for so many things in the Bible that we can't know for sure." Second category. You get the idea.
I also think that the complaints break down into one position: God is not reliable. You can see this under both categories. For the first category, He is not reliable to tell us what to do in His own Word, and in the second He is not reliable to keep His own Word through the ages. He is not reliable enough to insure that His own people know what His Word says. He is not Omniscient because He didn't plan for the future. He wasn't able to produce a comprehensive, authoritative, reliable manual for "the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints." (Jude 1:3) The flip side of that same coin is to lay it at our feet. We can't be trusted to properly interpret His Word. We can't really know what He intended. We are not reliable enough to say with certainty what was meant. Same thing, different approach.
It's all nonsense, you see. The distinction between "Christian" and "biblical Christian" looks a lot like "not Christian" and "Christian" when considered through the lens of "Is God reliable?" The non-biblical Christian would have to argue, "No, He's not ... but I'm a believer." Not a reasonable position. The best "anti-biblical Christian" arguments end up with only a couple of possibilities. Either God is not God -- not correct or good or right or reliable -- or the Holy Spirit has failed to accomplish what Jesus said He would (John 14:26). It's fairly simple. The Christian who confirms that the Bible is not reliable, inerrant, authoritative -- God's Word -- denies at the core the character and capability of God the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. If Christians are not actually people of the Book, they are not likely Christians1.
________
1 Just for clarity, I say "not likely" because in today's essentially anti-biblical world with anti-biblical voices in the church, it is entirely possible that a genuine Christian could be confused and deceived. That's the kind of person I'm hoping will read this and see a different path, that God is reliable, making His word trustworthy and authoritative.
11 comments:
In the early years of my career I had a coworker who was a "Christmas & Easter attender." He confided in me that he did not read the Bible because "It is too hard to understand."
To what extent does God have an obligation to supernaturally supply the knowledge to us individuals that we would need to know to have the right way to read a passage? I know of three different ways modern Christians interpret "Women, be silent in the church." I doubt someone in one of those camps would be able to persuade a person in a different camp to see it their way. But surely God could quickly do the persuading if He is motivated to.
I'm always impressed at the way some skeptics (don't know if you fall in this category) will complain about God using coercion or force on one hand and then argue that God's failure to use coercion or force demonstrates His nonexistence. I wonder why.
To answer the question, God is not obligated to supernaturally supply knowledge to anyone. Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would lead His own into the truth, but the place that starts and the way that is accomplished isn't "supernaturally supplying knowledge"; it is generally in reading what is present. And the primary reason there are "three different ways" to interpret that text is because of an a priori assumption that modern culture is right and, therefore, biblical texts will be wrong if they disagree. When taken at face value with text and context in view without pretext, it makes perfect sense. (That is, your choice of examples was not the best. There are other examples of differing views among genuine and sincere believers that would have been better.)
The claim is not a uniformity of belief, but certainly a unity of direction, beginning with "God's Word is right."
How reliable are numbers of believers when it comes to evaluating contradictory readings? Most Christians see purgatory in Luke 12:59 (for one place), but you may be in the minority who tell us the saints of old were getting it wrong. Is there any trepidation on your part in aligning yourself against the biblical grain?
How reliable is English, like "most Christians", both in terms of "most" AND "Christians"? I disagree. I don't align myself against the biblical grain.
When you say "most Christians", are you lumping Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant together? I'm not sure about EO, but purgatory isn't part of Protestant eschatology, but I know Catholics do. And now Stan's point of unreliable English shows up. When I think of "Christian", I typically think of Protestants, but do others? I doubt it.
More than half of the world's Christians are Catholic.
Unless you are going to insist Catholics, the original Christians, are not Christian. (They will be surprised to hear that.)
Yes, I figured you'd go with that.
1. “Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of My Father who is in heaven." (Matt 7:21) Jesus Himself (and much of other Scriptures) warned of false "Christians" within the church. "Christian" is not determined by "what I call myself".
2. "The original Christians" were not Roman Catholics. The original Christians were Jewish converts. "Roman Catholics" didn't occur until they came to power in Italy. (You may be surprised to learn that the Eastern Orthodox Church traces its origins back as far as the Roman Catholics do.)
3. "More than half of the world's Christians are Catholic." I doubt if more than half of self-professed Protestants are Christians. I'm quite certain that less than half Roman Catholics are Christians. You, like too many others, have bought the notion that "we are what we profess we are," at least when it comes to religion. I haven't.
Do you not consider St Peter the first pope of the church?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popes
No. Only the Roman Catholics believe that. (See, for instance, the list of Coptic Orthodox popes which begins with Mark.)
So are you able to articulate how the Spirit led you reject purgatory? Do you think He would have done that for you even if you had been born into a Catholic family?
Yes, I am able to explain what Scriptures have led me to conclude (with the rest of Christendom) why I (we) reject purgatory. Tomorrow.
Post a Comment