No, I'm not writing about my blog. I'm writing about the numbers of people -- they generally count themselves as Christians -- who have a form of faith that is not based on Scripture. They have "something better," apparently. "Why would we look to an ancient book written by men for our morality or beliefs?" So they shuffle Creation off to "myth" status since we all know that Science can prove that Evolution made it all. (Note: It can't.) They toss out such nonsense as Noah's Flood or most miraculous events in Scripture because Science can tell you that stuff just can't happen. (Note: Science can only tell us that by ignoring the texts and evidence and logic that a supernatural being can surely do things outside of natural restrictions.) A lot of the historical narrative is dismissed as ancient folklore. "I mean, seriously, would God require His people to make all those sacrifices for sin when sin is just not that bad?" "And, surely, God wouldn't command His people to kill the Amalekites like that, would He? Oh, no, we know better." The Old Testament is easy pickings for these, but they don't stop there. When Jesus says things they agree with, they'll use it, but when He doesn't, they ignore it. And after that it's even easier. "Paul? Why would we listen to an admitted killer? And those other guys? What do we really know about them?" And piece by piece they dismantle essentially the entirety of Scripture, if not overtly, by extension, because if Jesus quoted the Old Testament as fact and they disregard it, then Jesus is wrong ... along with the Old Testament they disregarded.
The thing that baffles me, then, is when they try to use Scripture to make their point. "Jesus said the gospel was for the poor and marginalized. Look, right there in Luke 4." Well, He didn't actually say anything about the "marginalized," and I'm not sure you heard Him right, but let's not go there right now. If you don't believe Scripture is reliable, why are you using Scripture to prove your point? How does it make sense to say, "Well, when Scripture says this which goes with what I believe, I'm all for it, but when it says that which blatantly contradicts my view, I reject it." You can't hang your hat on "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God" (Luke 6:20) while ignoring "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 5:3). You can't applaud Jesus when He said He was the "friend of sinners" (Matt 11:19) and boo Him when He says, "The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45). You can't set aside Scripture as unreliable and erroneous and then try to use it to prove your point. It's just not rational.
A Christian is someone who puts his trust in the Son of God who came to give His life as a ransom for many and not some Social Justice warrior who didn't much care about sin or its solution. A Christian is one that trusts in God as He revealed Himself in His Word and not the one you make up on your own out of your "better instincts" and "brighter mind." Standing on your own intuition for truth is quite a feat, but it's not Christianity. And if you can make stuff up on your own, you ought to have the grace to allow that those of us who use God's Word as our guide -- not because the book is holy, but because God is holy -- might have just as sure a standing at the table of truth as your "gut feelings." "Because I said so" isn't really a good way to structure a religion ... if you're not actually God.
6 comments:
The Bible is such a cohesive and connected book (probably the most internally hyperlinked book in history), that if you disregard some of it as useless or untrue, you've disregarded the entire thing as useless and untrue. Taking portions of Scripture as part of your own is an option, but when you are the arbitrator of truth, you have no ground to tell anyone else they are wrong. Only when there is an external and objective standard can some people be right and others wrong.
“You can't set aside Scripture as unreliable and erroneous and then try to use it to prove your point. It's just not rational.” Agreed! Doing that also creates an ineffective jumble of arguments, as those people cherry-pick among interdependent teachings that only make sense when considered cohesively. The Bible is a unified picture of cohesive Truth--not independent snippets of it from which to pick and choose; therefore, rightly dividing Scripture is essential. As you point out, learning God’s Truth is not done by “winging it” (no reference to your blog there either :).
David,
Great point. The internal consistency almost demands that removing one piece renders the rest worthless. Much like the CS Lewis argument for Jesus. You can't pull out the great moral teachings and ignore the claims of deity.
Really good post.
Dan: "For people like me, do you realize that I/we are not saying that Scripture is unreliable? We're saying that we disagree with your human understanding of Scripture?"
No, Dan, that's not what you are saying. First, if "people like me" includes feodor, he absolutely denies the reliability of Scripture. He gets direct input from the Holy Spirit which overrides all that falsehood. But even you say that Genesis was myth, not real. You can't take it as written. You say that the Pentateuch was wrong about such things as sacrifices and sin. That would be too barbaric. You say that God didn't command Israel to wipe out that Amalekite clan. Your God wouldn't do that. You have a long list of things, Old Testament and New, that are ... wrong. Further, you adamantly argue that Scripture is not without error. Scripture is indeed wrong in places. And you don't believe it is a reliable source for morality. You don't need biblical morality when you know better. It's only partially reliable for telling us about Jesus. No, Dan, that is not any kind of a reliable Scripture, my interpretation or not.
Is there a non-human understanding of Scripture? Scripture doesn't take a lot of brain power to understand some of the basic tenets. Sin against God is worthy of eternal damnation, Jesus lived a sinless life and died on a cross to pay for our sins. There is no interpretive difference when it comes to things the Bible straight out says in precise words.
David, I believe there is a “non-human understanding of Scripture”--one formed through the ministry of the indwelling Holy Spirit, who leads believers to a knowledge of truth (John 14:26) and the “deep things of God” (1 Cor. 2:10ff). The unregenerated person’s default interpretation is his/her own understanding (1 Cor. 2:14), with its human biases and preconceived man-centered perspectives (this might describe Dan’s mindset), while those who have been born again are renewing their minds through the Word and adopting biblical thinking. Many of the “basic tenets” you mention are indeed easy enough to comprehend--and not subject to personal interpretation, as you point out--but are not as readily accepted as unequivocal truth by those not in full submission to the Lord (again, this might describe Dan’s situation).
Post a Comment