It's Not in There

I cannot tell you how many times I've heard the claim, "That's not in the Bible." Often I've heard it because I'm making it. "Cleanliness is next to godliness" is not in there. It's not in there in words or in spirit. "The Lord helps those who help themselves." Not in there. Not only is it not in there; it is actually refuted. Jesus said, "Apart from Me you can do nothing." (John 15:5) "If we pray, God will heal our land." That's actually sort of in there (2 Chron 7:14), but it's not quite correct. It's a promise to Israel at the time and, while we can count on God always taking care of His people, "our land" is not part of that certainty. How about the ubiquitous "Money is the root of all evil"? Nope, not in there. Oh, you may think you can point to the verse, but what that one actually says is, "The love of money is a root of all kinds of evils." (1 Tim 6:10) That is, it is not money that is the problem, but loving it, and it is not all evil, but all kinds of evil.

Amid all of these fallacies offered as biblical and are not, you might think that it doesn't go the other way. It does. Routinely people tell me, "That's not in the Bible" when it actually is. "That homosexual behavior is a sin is not in the Bible." Yes, yes it is. You may not accept it, but it's there. "But there are only 6 references" which, by the way, means that it's there. "But they don't mean that." So, you may disagree with the interpretation (despite the fact that the language says it and that all of history has believed it), but at this point you cannot say it's not in there. One of the most popular ones? "The Trinity is not in the Bible." While it is true that the word "trinity" is not in there, it is unavoidable that the doctrine is. (I gave that last sentence with that link because there is far too much Scripture on the subject to list here.) They say it's not in there, but that is blatantly false. Ever popular is the idea that "The doctrine of election is not in the Bible." I would suggest that it is unavoidably in the Bible. Pick up any concordance. Look for "elect" or "election", and don't forget "chosen". It was no less than Jesus who said, "Many are called but few are chosen." (Matt 22:14) We may differ about the mechanism of election, but the doctrine that the saved are chosen is absolutely certain.

It was this very argument I heard the other day. "You know, you're Penal Substitutionary Atonement is not in the Bible." This is fascinating to me because the entire entry was from the Bible. I took a passage (Rom 5:8-10) and pointed out how every single component of the principle was in those verses. Now, more than one person objected to the doctrine and more than one suggested that wasn't what the text meant, but not one said what it did mean that was not what I said it meant. Beyond that, there was no acknowledgement of the multitude of passages (not merely verses) from Genesis through Revelation on the subject. That is, it is in the Bible. Scripture is full of the penalty of sin ("penal"), that Christ died for us ("substitutionary"), and that His death provided the propitiation of the wrath we earned and brought us into a right relationship with God ("atonement"). The claim cannot be made that "It's not in there." It can be said that this is possibly the primary message of the Bible. A failure to acknowledge this does not constitute proof that it's not in there. The claim might be made that "It's in there, but that's not what it means." Doing so defies the language, but it could be attempted. But the flag was thrown -- "It's not in the Bible" -- and the penalty called and, therefore, we're supposed to assume it's not in the Bible. End of argument.

My point here is not that Penal Substitutionary Atonement is in the Bible. It is, but that's not my point. My point is not that the Trinity or Election are in there, or even that the Bible is clear on the sinfulness of homosexual behavior. All that is true, but that's not my point. My point here is that we need to know our Bibles. We need to know the texts and the contexts. We need to know the cross references, the underlying biblical principles, the overarching concepts. We need to know, as an example, that "the blood" is not the issue, but that "the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life." (Lev 17:11) That is, it is the life that is the issue, not some "blood sacrifice". We are woefully biblically illiterate these days. We are exactly what the author of Hebrews bemoaned.

For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food, for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child. But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil. (Heb 5:12-14)

We have had so much opportunity for good Bible teaching and good Bible study and access to good Bible tools that we ought to be teachers. Instead, we cannot tell that homosexual behavior is a sin or that cleanliness is not next to godliness. As James said, "My brothers, these things ought not to be." If the Bible is God's Word and if the Word of God proves true (Psa 18:30; Prov 30:5), then we ought to be wholly dedicated to this instead of playing at the edges.