I know that picking on ”Bishop” John Shelby Spong’s theology is like shooting fish in a theological barrel, but he is still taken seriously in some Christian circles. I put his title in scare quotes because he mocks the essentials of the faith and uses his position to spread un-Christian views.
He issued a call for a New Reformation (Oh, Luther would be so proud!).
#6 alone should garner him an ejector seat from the church (“The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed.”)
His list of 12 items he manages to deny many essentials of the faith and other important issues:
- The atonement
- The deity of Christ
- Biblical authority
- The exclusivity of Christ
- Miracles, including the virgin birth
- The physical resurrection
- Original sin
- Sanctity of marriage and heterosexual behavior
- The Bible as a guide to ethical behavior
- More!
Why anyone would consider him a Christian is beyond me. He doesn’t just believe a little differently from orthodox Christianity on the essentials, he teaches the opposite. He literally and figuratively mocks the cross and the blood of the martyrs.
He appears to be making up his own god. Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris have equally (un)charitable views towards the faith, but at least they are honest enough to call themselves atheists.
I’m not saying that 100% of pro-legalized-abortion and pro-”same-sex-marriage” proponents are heretics like Spong, but I do see a remarkable correlation of their views with his.
But I do have to give Spong credit on one point. Even though he denies the authority of the Bible at every turn, he at least concedes this:
“The Bible can certainly be read as condemnatory of homosexual practice. Both sides admit that.”
Well, Mr. Spong, both sides should admit that. But parts of your side deny the obvious.
I appreciate his concession, though, because that makes the conversation more productive. We agree on what the Bible says on this matter, but we don’t agree on whether Christians should consider the Bible to be authoritative. That is a far more honest conversation.
Interestingly, he appears to understand what the Bible says. He just doesn’t like what it says, so he is trying to create a new religion. That is his prerogative and I fully support his religious and political freedom to do so.
I just think it would be more intellectually honest if he would take off his collar and renounce his title while doing so.
I think Spong’s chief value is that his books and thinking do draw people into discussions of the Christian faith, and they do help draw people who have “been away” from the faith, back into it. God’s grace finds its way to receptive hearts and minds.
Why Spong calls himself a Christian, and I consider to be extremely powerful testimony and is, after all, IMHO, about all any of us have:
“The … resurrection of Jesus is for me an experience that was real, of enormous power, beyond the capacity of any words to capture, but the actions of the people who were embraced by that experience say that it had a certain validity. I do not ever want to be literal about the words I use to articulate my faith. I do not want to make unchanging idols out of the formularies of my tradition. I cannot conceive of anyone finding credibility in the authoritarian pronouncements of an infallible pope, an inerrant bible or literal creeds, but at the same time I cannot deny the experience that lies behind the words that seek to describe this Christ. I cannot walk away from the faith to which the ancient words of the creed still point. I cannot deny the reality of that moment called Easter that changed the face of human history.”
I say that’s plenty reason for him to consider himself, and me to consider him, a Christian. Everything else you mentioned in your list as “essentials” are debatable, IMHO.
Here’s a more thorough look at some Spongisms, by someone Neil probably agrees with for the most part:
http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/590.htm
Oh, BTW, I don’t think Spong, with No. 6, dismisses the concept of atonement. He dismisses the idea of blood atonement — which, of course, is pretty basic now, but is not the only way to look at the reconciliation of God to humankind made possible through the Cross.
By denying the divinity of Christ? By denying His physical Resurrection? No miracles? This isn’t a god to whom Spong is leading anyone. It’s a cartoon. If you think he’s doing anything to lead anyone to the risen Lord, you’re mistaken. He’s merely leading people to a false god that he has created and for which he has made himself pope. He’s a fraud and as Neil suggested, not worthy to wear the clerical garb of a Christian minister. It’s that simple. C’mon, ER. Even with your “tolerant” theological philosophies, to give even this heretic any credence is going way too far. He is woefully misled, and worse, he misleads. He deserves not respect nor attention, but only pity and prayers that he is blessed with the epiphany he needs.
I have pre-disagreed with you, obviously. And I think this so limits what God can do, it ain’t even funny: “If you think he’s doing anything to lead anyone to the risen Lord, you’re mistaken.” There’s no way you could know that. Not at all.
“For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear”. 2 Timothy 4:3 (NIV). This verse was prophetically written about Spong and thoses like him. Spong honestly believes he is trying to “save” the church. However, he’s 180 degrees from the correct approach. I prefer G.K. Chesterton who said, “What is needed is not a church that will change with the world, but a church that will change the world”. Instead of transforming ourselves to blend in, we need to stand out.
“I have pre-disagreed with you, obviously. And I think this so limits what God can do, it ain’t even funny: “If you think he’s doing anything to lead anyone to the risen Lord, you’re mistaken.” There’s no way you could know that. Not at all.”
ER,
I could be wrong, but when people make an argument based on what they believe the Bible says, you respond with “you are limiting God.” Most of us realize that God can do anything He wants, but we just happen to believe that His character and His actions happen to go along with what it says in the Bible. Now, I understand you only believe in certain parts of the Bible (out of curiosity, how do you know what parts to believe?), but it’s not an issue of “limiting God”, it’s just an issue of believing how true the Bible is.
You think we are limiting God by believing that God made an inerrant Bible; we could just as easily argue that you are limiting God by saying he can’t or won’t produce an inerrant Bible.
I believe God is limited when we add to the Bible…when we make statements about God that He never made about Himself, that is limiting to Him.
Concerning whether Spong is a heretic, there are a couple passages in 1 John that would automatically disquality him…I guess I could throw Bible verses at you, but you may think they are flawed anyway…so I don’t know if there is a point. (I’m not trying to be snarky, I just realize it is hard to debate Bible stuff when you don’t believe all of the Bible). So…if you believe in an inerrant Bible, then Spong is easily a heretic, if you believe the Bible is just written by a bunch of guys without inspiration from God, well, I’m not sure if anyone is a heretic.
But my main point is not Bible says this or that, it is just, if you see me or anyone else make a statement about God that the Bible does not say feel free to make the “limiting God” charge, if we are just making a statement that the Bible says, well then it’s not an issue of you being more tolerant than thou, but a question of the authenticity of the Bible.
There is the “in my humble opinion” again… which if true humility did really exist, then it would submit itself to the word of God that does teach a true, physical resurrection, a virgin birth, miracles by the God-Man, atonement through the shed blood of Christ, true grace and forgiveness from impending judgment from a Holy and Just God, a Savior that both condemns sin and offers forgiveness, a Savior that does not disagree with the Old Testament and all the wars and so called atrocities, etc…
True humility doesn’t doubt the Bible. It submits to it. True humility submits to it’s authority, it’s own claims of being God’s word, etc. False humility is just window dressing for arrogance and rebellion against the God who has revealed Himself through God’s written word.
And that would be Spong and his followers.
Chance, it is incorrect to say that I “believe only parts of the Bible.” I believe all of the writings are the testimonies of Jews and early Christians, our Scriptural inheritance, and, as such, they are sacred.
But for me to “submit,” humbly or otherwise, to “the Bible” — as if “it” had one, single clear message, which it does not, would require me to bow myself before a part of the Creation, rather than to the Creator.
Submitting to the Truth in the Bible, that is, to the Word of God found *in* the Bible, to the God testified to in the Bible — those are different things, and that’s what we’re called to do.
As for my rebellion: It is directed at the corruption of the Church at the judgmental hand of fundamentalism, and what I consider Bibliolatry.
“But for me to “submit,” humbly or otherwise, to “the Bible” — as if “it” had one, single clear message, which it does not, would require me to bow myself before a part of the Creation, rather than to the Creator.”
I’m not sure I completely understand. I see the entire Bible as having one clear message, that is, humans trying to win themselves to God and realizing they do not have it within themselves to do so. Hence, Christ came as a sacrifice to bridge the gap between God and man. It sounds like you would agree, but that is what I see as a clear message contained throughout the entire Bible, with small side stories and proverbs scattered in there.
You say you don’t believe “only parts of the Bible” but you do say that it has errors in it, and in conversations with you, it seems that you don’t believe certain ideas or stories illustrated in the Bible, so naturally, I just assumed you didn’t believe certain parts. I’m not saying you are misleading me or anything, I am just trying to understand your view of the Bible.
As far as Bibliolatry, I can understand your concern, but I don’t think seeing it as inerrant or infallible is necessarily bible-worship. If believing something as the ultimate source of authority is worship of that source, then one could argue that self-worship is involved when we use our own viewpoints as the ultimate lens to determine correct and incorrect ideas. I’m not saying that’s what you are doing, I’m just saying one has to be consistent in their standards of judging what worship truly is.
This is the problem. I absolutely do regard the Bible as authoritative, but that does not mean it is perfect! What part of there is none perfect but God in heaven is hard to understand? NOTHING is perfect, save God God’s self. Sufficient to salvation? Yes. A GREAT guideline to what the warly church believed. Sure.
But perfect? Even “in the original” texts? No. It doesn’t need to be, though. And “sola scriptura” is not the only way Christians of good faith and conscience regard the Scriptures.
BTW, a lay leader read a passage from the Gospel of Thomas yesterday. That’d probably knocked y’alls’ socks off. Part of the Canon. No, obviously not. Authentic Gospel of a part of the early Church. Yes, therefore worthy of study.
Concerning the gospel of Thomas, research has been done to lead me to believe it is not as authoritative as some of the other scriptures. There is a link at http://www.probe.org/theology—bible/the-gospel-of-thomas.html.
“What part of there is none perfect but God in heaven is hard to understand?”
Is that a particular Bible verse? I don’t believe anyone is righteous but God based on the Bible, but I do believe God can create perfect things. I don’t believe people are perfect other than God, but I do believe God can work through imperfect people to create something perfect.
But from a philosophical standpoint, for me, I can only view the Bible as authoritative if I view it as perfect. But you view it otherwise. Do you think we should go off of it because it is the best we have, despite being imperfect, or do you think we should use our own intellect and common sense to determine what parts are a bit off? If it is the latter, I just have difficulty using my own self as the ultimate source of authority. I am weighing the Bible against my own beliefs, rather than vice versa. Or is it a different option, maybe I am providing a false dilemma.
It mangled my link, let me try this. Gospel of Thomas
ER, it seems to me that Jesus, as portrayed in the Bible, did not share your view of Scripture: on the contrary, He affirmed Scripture to the smallest penstroke. If Jesus Christ Himself was wrong to do this, on what basis are His other teachings trustworthy? Or the Gospels were inaccurate in attributing this attitude to Him, on what basis do we trust their accounts about His other teachings?
For my part, I think it is accurate to say that you believe only parts of the Bible. You may believe the entire Bible is “the testimonies of Jews and early Christians”, but you deny that the entire Bible is the written revelation of God to man. It seems to me that the Bible doesn’t claim to be merely authored by Jews and early Christians, but by God Himself: by standing where you do, you affirm the entire Bible except the claims about its own authorship.
Didn’t say the Gospel of Thomas was as authrotative as the Bible. I didn’t say it was authoritative at all. I referred to it as authentic, as in it’s an authentic example of a Gnostic text. But maybe it’s not, if there is new news on that.
The only thing I can say is that if we accept the idea of the Fall, then none of Creation is perfect — unless God is still creating things that do not come under the condemnation of the Fall — and that, itself, is an intriguing question because if God IS still creating then he really IS “still speaking” — the UCC phrase that drives some people bonkers.
I digress. The main point is that if you need to see the Bible as perfect to rely on it, go for it. I don’t. The gist of the Gospel IS clear, and I think you summed it up nicely up there: “humans trying to win themselves to God and realizing they do not have it within themselves to do so. Hence, Christ came as a sacrifice to bridge the gap between God and man.” — although some Christians characterize the act on the Cross differently than a sacrifice, and, as a gentile for whom the historic Jewish animal sacrifices mean nothing, I really don’t have a problem with that. (See Moral influence theory of atonement).
I have hesitated to comment, as I have no opinion about Spong. Nothing I’ve read here has changed that.
I would just like to say on this line of thinking about what the Bible is and says: I agree with ER and others who say that the Gospel is clear: The Gospel is the Good News is that we are saved by God’s grace through our imperfect faith and that we ought to follow in Jesus’ steps as we “work out our salvation” as the scriptures put it.
But always remembering that we ARE saved by God’s Grace and not through this hoop or that hoop that others might want us to jump through. ESPECIALLY extrabiblical hoops.
It’s not: “You’re saved by God’s Grace AND believing that the Bible is ‘inerrant.’” Nor is it, “You’re saved by God’s Grace AND belief in the Virgin Birth AND the Triune nature of God AND the acceptance of historic religious teachings AND the belief that the world was created in six literal days…”
No. God forbid! We are saved by God’s grace and God’s grace alone and a pox on those who’d add to the scriptures additional roadblocks to God’s saving grace. As Jesus noted:
“They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger… But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in.”
Thank God for God’s gift to us, if we but accept it.
Bubba, Scripture as we know it today did not exist while Jesus walked this earth — not the New Testament anyway. Not one of the books in the NT had been written yet. So the following doesn’t make sense to me: “So it seems to me that Jesus, as portrayed in the Bible, did not share your view of Scripture.” Jesus is protrayed in the Bible as quoting and relying on some of what we now call the Old Testament.
“It’s not: “You’re saved by God’s Grace AND believing that the Bible is ‘inerrant.’” Nor is it, “You’re saved by God’s Grace AND belief in the Virgin Birth AND the Triune nature of God AND the acceptance of historic religious teachings AND the belief that the world was created in six literal days…””
Dan, you make a good point, in that we must believe in Christ and not view other things as essentials, i.e. evolution, age of earth.
However, I believe some of the things Neil points out as points of disagreement ARE essentials, namely, the divinity of Christ. I would allow some flexibility with some of the nuances of doctrine, but if somebody believes that Jesus was not divine, that He didn’t die on the cross for our sins, and that He wasn’t resurrected….well, there is not much left to Christianity.
If you don’t want to make a statement of his eternal soul I suppose I can understand that, but it appears that you have no problems with his teachings. Looking at his statements in the link, they all seem to contradict Christianity.
I believe Jesus is divine. I don’t know for sure what Spong believes (the “sound bite” quotes notwithstanding) and so, as I said, I have no opinion on the fella’s teachings. He seems to not believe in God’s or Jesus’ divinity, which seems quite strange to me.
Nonetheless, I’m reminded of Jesus’ story of the two brothers who were told by their father to go do a chore. One said, “Yes, I will” and didn’t. The other said, “No, I won’t,” but did. And, as Jesus states in Matthew 25, the difference between the sheep and the goats is what they did and didn’t do. So, given Jesus’ teachings, I’m a bit more concerned about orthopraxy than orthodoxy.
You might believe some weird stuff about God (“I believe in the quadrilateral nature of God…Father, mother, son and holy ghost…”, fer instance) and I would tend to cut you more slack as long as you are following Jesus’ teachings than I would one who believes “the right doctrine” but who openly rejects Jesus’ teachings.
I have no great desire to disassociate myself from him as a brother in Christ, nor do I have any desire to disassociate myself from any of y’all as a brother or sister in Christ, although I may have great issues with some of your teachings (and perhaps with Spong’s teachings).
Ivan said “Instead of transforming ourselves to blend in, we need to stand out.”
We have to be careful that we don’t try to stand out so hard that we bend the word of God. I disagree with ER about the Word being perfect. I think it is and I think it’s inerrant. We can’t change that and we can’t change the message.
But we can teach the message in a different way. We can reach out to the confused and talk to them in their language, but it English, Arabic, or slang. Paul cut through a lot of junk to reach people.
I’m a Southern Baptist and proud of my heritage, but too often we lose the message in the presentation. If a person won’t stay awake, he can’t hear the Gospel.
“Nonetheless, I’m reminded of Jesus’ story of the two brothers who were told by their father to go do a chore. One said, “Yes, I will” and didn’t. The other said, “No, I won’t,” but did. And, as Jesus states in Matthew 25, the difference between the sheep and the goats is what they did and didn’t do. So, given Jesus’ teachings, I’m a bit more concerned about orthopraxy than orthodoxy.”
I see your point, but I don’t need Jesus to tell me to be nice to people. It is the doctrine that makes the Bible special. It’s not doing nice things for people that establishes the relationship with Christ, but having an understanding of who Jesus is.
I have zero desire for unity with people like Spong or others who mock and deny the essentials of the faith or who are in open rebellion to God and his Word (e.g., supporters of same-sex marriage in the church).
Favoring orthopraxy over orthdoxy is another false teaching. Orthodoxy should lead to orthopraxy. But there are many false religions (including Spong’s, whatever it is called) that might look like they have orthopraxy. Yet following their teachings would be a ticket to Hell. Many people do good deeds for their glory, not God’s (been there, done that, and still do that at times). If they deny the essentials of the faith then I doubt their good deeds are done for the right reason.
“the difference between the sheep and the goats is what they did and didn’t do.”
Dan, you wax eloquent on the importantance of grace and not adding to that, and on that we agree. But then you turn around and give works-based righteousness examples.
Works flow from faith. I think we can agree on that. I think what Dan was talking about was clues for how we can tell another person is a Christian — and they only are clues.
I think what Dan was saying that works are a better indication — but just an indication — of faith than any profession of faith by a person who does no works.
And I agree. But I think that one has to know someone pretty well to make such a judgement at all, and even then it’s dicey.
E.R., I need to check with my lawyer first, but I think I agree with those points.
BTW, a note on whether God uses Spong to draw people to God’s self.
Joe Dallas, who wrote a book called something like “A Strong Delusion: Confronting the ‘Gay Christian’ Movement,” and other similar books, writes in “A Strong Delsusion” of becoming convicted by the Holy Spirit that he wasn’t really gay and that he needed to return to the conservative Christianity of his upbringing.
You know where he was when he became convicted? In a pew at a gay church. He was an active member. I wonder whether he would have become convicted had he not remained active in church. I don’t have any idea, but I wonder.
Note 1: I read that book as personal penance for making a friend of mine who works for FOTF read one of Jimmy Carter’s books. My friend said I owed it to him.
Note 2: Apparently, Dallas struggled with whether he was a homosexual or not. Apparently, he is not. For him to continue living the homosexual lifestyle after becoming convicted that he was NOT homosexual would have been “continuing in sin so that Grace may abound,” I think. Had he not been so convicted, yet he pretended to be heterosexual, and lived a heterosexual lifestyle, that would be living a lie, which also would be a sin. I do not envy brothers and sisters who struggle with this!
Joe Dallas is terrific. I often recommend Responding to Pro-Gay Theology.
Yes, you definitely owed your friend a favor!
Can God draw people out of the most unlikely circumstances? Yes. Does he teach us to use bad theology on purpose? No.
I was in a liberal, watered down church before I was a Christian. I started reading the Bible and listening to Christian radio and was converted. But that doesn’t mean I’d recommend that anyone attend my former church.
Funny. I was in many conservative, watered down churches before I found my current church where the Bible is feverishly taught as God’s Word to be heeded…
Sure, Dan. Please don’t confuse new readers – they might not automatically infer that “to be heeded” means supporting “same-sex marriage.”
Well, I guess I would recommend that anyone attend any Christian church at all — that is, where people are gathered in Jesus’s name — than not go to church at all.
So, Neil, is it fair for me to say:
“Please don’t confuse the readers, Neil. When you say you’re a Christian, that means you follow your description of what it means to follow Christ and not what Jesus actually said”?
We disagree on the notion of gay marriage, yes. As we disagree on what it means to love our enemies (You think it means we can kill them and their children and neighbors).
If we’re going to be all testy and all, shall we just snipe at each other, or would it be better to acknowledge that we have differences and discuss them without demonization?
(Or am I over-reacting and your last comment was a good-natured jibe?)
Dan, I have seen you get all lathered up over thinking people were misreading your comments, well I think you just did a lot of that in your interpretation of what Neil said. You know, when you go on your “bearing false witness” thingy. You have yet to give a scripture quote that ok’s gay marriage. And, I would answer that you over-react when you comment so many times in a row.
Mom2, you’re stalking Dan, and it reflects poorly on you! . No matter the topic, you think he’s wrong, which is one thing, but all you’ve done for days if not weeks now is insist that he not say it. If you don’t like what he writes, skip it!
Oh, that was an absolute, unprovoked swipe: “Sure, Dan. Please don’t confuse new readers – they might not automatically infer that “to be heeded” means supporting “same-sex marriage.” ”
Just couldn’t let a peaceful thread go without mucking it up, eh?
Scripture is SILENT on gay marriage mom, for the same reason it’s silent on space travel: the concepts hadn’t been though of yet.
I just realized that Timothy was taking a swipe at ME with his crack about “humble” opinions. My opinions most certainly are not humble. HONEST is what the H stands for when I use IMHO.
And I’d suggest Timothy not even come *that* close to addressing me directly.
ER, I have a right to my comments also, and Dan is boring, boring, boring and he goes everywhere with the same old, same old. You do yourself no service by joining him in his twisted interpretations of scripture or his insertion of the silence of scripture on his pet issues. I have given up on Dan, but I have not given up on those that he causes to be confused. I almost give up on you from time to time also, but you at least don’t repeat the same freakin things all the time.
If the same comment of mine shows up more than once, I don’t know what’s going on. Glitch or something…
Great plan, mom. If you don’t like someone’s take on Scripture, insult them at every turn. Inspiring.
BTW, I’ve never “joined” Dan for the sake of it. Where we agree, we agree. Where we disagree, we disagree.
We actually do disagree on the nature of Scripture, I think. I think Dan has assented to it being “God’s revelation to man” — I could be mistaken. While I believe that the Bible includes accounts of God’s revelations to certain men, I do not believe it, as a whole, is a single thing that can be described, over all, as “God’s revelation to man.”
We also disagree, I know for a fact, on the basis for our similar positions on homosexuality. I’m pretty sure that it’s Dan’s interpretation of Scripture that leads him to his conclusions. I do not base my position on an interpretation of Scripture, for what the Bible says, to me, does, actually, seem pretty straightforward (although, of course, I have plenty of room in my thinking for someone who so interprets Scripture — and for the other side, too.
I base my position on the historical fact that the mainstream of the Church has been on the wrong side of evey fight like this that the chuch has ever had. Indians. Slaves. Blacks in Jim Crow days. Women. Education. You name it. One can interpret Scripture to justify maltreatment of every one of them. And one can interpret Scripture to keep homosexuals out of the pew, off trhe church rolls and out fromn behind the pulpit. And it’s just as wrong as the other things were.
Is the Bible wrong? The Bible says what it says. The Church has been wrong in the way it’s used the Bible. Whole swaths of the Church still misuse the Bible by using it to judge, condemn and exclude fellow Christians.
I’ll just say that one could make the case that the church was on the right side of those issues as well.
“Scripture is SILENT on gay marriage mom, for the same reason it’s silent on space travel: the concepts hadn’t been though of yet.”
You may be right. It was such a ridiculous concept that no one dared suggest it. It took a couple thousand years and a disastrous sexual revolution to make that idea seem plausible.
P.S. Even my buddy Shelby Spong agrees that scripture condemns homosexual behavior (I never thought I would quote him to make a point). He doesn’t feverishly heed the Bible, though.
Then we all three are in agreement! ER, Neil and Sping. THIS *is* what I said: “the Bible says, to me, does, actually, seem pretty straightforward.” I’m referring to the N.T. references only. The O.T. references have a context that does not, strictly speaking, apply to me, per se. Holiness Code, etc.
Space travel was equally ridiculous, I’m sure.
The church was on the right side of thinking slaves were subhuman? That Indians didn’t have souls? That American apartheid was fine and dandy? What ARE you talkin’ about? You sneak into the Communion wine? (Or are you a grape juice person?) Either you misread me, or I’m misreading you.
I won’t even give you the women-in-leadership part. Nosirreee. Paul was a creature of his culture — besides, he was inconsistent on the woman thing. Heck fire, he was inconsistent in his own walk with the Lord! As were the Disciples themselves! As are all of us.
E.R.,
Calm down, fella. I meant that Christians were divided on those issues. Christians led the fight to abolish slavery, for example.
I just find it rather poor reasoning to say that Christians were wrong on something before, so they must be wrong today on whatever it is we’re talking about. You also seem to only consider American Christians. There are probably as many authentic Christians in China as there are in the U.S.
I’m be doing a piece on “Paul, the feminist” someday. He wrote about women in different contexts, but given his times his views were as radical as they are considered today – but for the opposite reason.
And I don’t find them to be inconsistent. Women had equal value but – hold onto your hats – different roles.
Re. the “creature of his culture” bit – was the Holy Spirit a creature of his culture?
One problem I have with those who would insist that the Bible is not completely true is this: I believe those who believe it isn’t completely true are limiting God to a mortal concept. God is not mortal and thus does not see things as mortal man does. For instance, God sees our whole life, from conception all the way to death. What mortal can do that? He knows everything we think to do, before we even think to do it, and he knows when we will think it, and what actions we will take regardless of whether they are the right actions. And He is capable of turning even our worst tribulations into blessings. What mortal can do that? He is omniscient, omipotent, omnipresent, and omni-everything else. What mortal can truthfully claim that?
We do not know how God sees mortal man, but in the Bible we can get a general idea. If God had wanted to create men as robots with no free will, he would have, and still can make us that way, if He so desires. God sees the true value of a human life, and maybe He has a lesser opinion of us than we have of ourselves. I don’t know, but in the eternal scheme of things, in which God is the architect, the whole of a human life is less than a twinkling of God’s all seeing eye. God is God. We are nothing in comparison.
He can do anything He wants. He makes the rules. He can change them at anytime. Who has the right to say He cannot?
When one insists that Jonah could not possibly have been swallowed by a great fish, because it defies human logic, one is limiting God to only those things that mortals are capable of.
When one says he doesn’t believe Moses parted the waters of the Red Sea to allow the Hebrew Children to walk across on dry land, one is effectively saying God is not omnipotent and is not capable of breaking the laws of nature. That is squeezing God into a box made of mortal limitations.
Was there really a great flood that destroyed every living thing on Earth except the creatures Noah brought onto the Ark with him? If you say there wasn’t you are saying you don’t believe God has the abillity (or right) to destroy the Earth at His whim.
If you deny the possibility of the bodily resurrection of the Jesus, or the virgin birth, you are saying you believe God cannot create life.
If you say you can’t believe a Loving God would consign sinners to a Hell of everlasting torment, you are putting mortal emotion before God’s perfect judgement. In fact, God never said He would send anyone to Hell. He said, if you don’t believe you are condemned already. That means those who reject God are condemning themselves to hell. It is the perfect example of the Free will that Man made use of to curse himself and his seed.
Finally, as Chance mentioned earlier, if parts of the Bible are in error, who (besides God Himself) is so arrogant to be the arbiter of what parts are accurate and what parts aren’t?
The whole argument boils down to this:
God says He is the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. All things were made by Him that were made, and nothing that was not made by Him was made. He is the eternal Creator of the Universe, the maker of the rules. And as such, He can change the rules as He pleases, if He knows it to be the best thing to do, and He does.
If God, the Creator of the Universe says the Bible is His word, he is not lying, kidding, or even mistaken. Take it as fact. He has the ability to put His words into the pen of ordinary men, like Peter, Paul, and Moses. He has the ability to select dozens of men from different sociialogical, economic, and national backgrounds, and will them to write his words on parchment with absoilutely no errors at all. If one cannot believe God can do those things, one cannot concieve of an immortal God.
I believe the Bible is God’s word, and God’s word is inerrant, because God is perfect and inerrent. Why would He permit His own word to be perverted to mean something He never intended it to mean?
If any part of the Bible is inaccurate, the entire work is suspect and becomes just another book, with no supernatural influence. It may as well be a childs coloring book.
You are free to consider my reasoning good or poor, or somewhere in between. I am talking about American Christians. The abolitionists were a teeny-tiny majority up to and through most of the Late Unpleasantness; divided? not even close to evently; even afterwards, not even abolitionists wanted freedmen to live among whites. To this day, churches are one of the last bastions of segregation in this country.
Your last question: The Holy Spirit works with whom the Holy Spririt Works. Christians in the American South who held slaves, or otherwise supported slavery, or tolerated it, did so because they were trapped in their own culture and economy, despite whatever the Holy Spirit might have been trying to accomplish through them. They BELIEVED they were doing right by Africans to keep them in bondage, based on an honest interpretation of Scripture. Christians int he North, almost all of them, came to believe slavery was wrong but that blacks still were inferior to whites, and to be treated like children and kept separate from white, and they thought so in good conscience. But time proved them wrong — as times changed.
Besides, regarding your “Holy Spirit a creature of his culture” bit, I don’t know how you think that question even makes sense to someone unless he believes that Paul’s letters are, like, the inerrant, infallible, perfect Word of God.
Mark, I think the only way you can go from “He doesn’t believe the Bible is inerrant” to “He is limiting God” is to believe that God and the Bible are one and the same. I do not deny that God can do anything God wants; I deny that God DOES do whatever God wants. God limits God’s own self. Obviously. Or we’d all be toast.
Re, “Why would He permit His own word to be perverted to mean something He never intended it to mean?”" You tell me. God is said to have spoken all this is aprt from God’s self into exisitence. Spoke it in being. And look at it.
Re, “If any part of the Bible is inaccurate, the entire work is suspect” — no, not unless one sees the numerous writings that make up what we now call “the Bible” as a single solitary thing, which it is not — “and becomes just another book” — no, it is sacred, but that is not the same thing as “perfect” — “and with no supernatural influence.” Well, my Bible just lies there. It has no supernatural influence whatsoever. Again: you seem to be confusing, or conflating, God God’s self with the Bible. And that makes it an idol.
Gah! Lrt me fix this! (You’d never know i was an editor)..
Re, “Why would He permit His own word to be perverted to mean something He never intended it to mean?”” You tell me. God is said to have spoken all that is apart from God’s self into existence. Spoke it into being. And look at it.
ER,
There’s a difference between using the Bible poorly to support things, like enslaving blacks and considering them inferior, and saying the same goes for homosexuals. First of all, the people at the time were going only by skin color, whence they came, and the fact that without being educated, they always acted, uh, uneducated. But eventually, they found that there really is no difference OTHER THAN skin color and their previous assumptions were wrong. In that, the Bible doesn’t support slavery other than to address how one should treat a slave should slavery exist. The taking of slaves in ancient times is an entirely different dynamic compared to the slavery in America.
The Church does indeed still discriminate, but not nearly as much as it should. We are taught to cast out the unrepentant sinner. In this sense, preventing unrepentant homosexuals from communing with the body of Christ, just as with any other unrepentant sinner, is to prevent them from tainting the community, as they obviously have in far too many Christian churches today. Now, I’m not saying that someone struggling with homosexual urges is not welcome. You should feel the urges provoking me when I read Dan’s comments! Sinful urges are what we need Christ’s healing love for. But the happy homo couple that shows up with pictures of their trip to Cancun aren’t exactly repenting, thus, they should be excommunicated for at least the period required to adjust their behavior.
Likewise their ordination is inappropriate because of their open sinfulness. Now one with the urges who remains chaste should not be prevented because by that rule, no one is worthy of the ministry. But if a pastor is openly cheating on his wife, or publicizing his part time work as a hit man for the mob, he is openly sinful just as the homosexual who is openly living the lifestyle and/or seeking to put it on the same plane as hetero marriage.
Finally, I don’t doubt God’s ability to bring people to Him even if they attended a Wiccan or devil worship service. I wouldn’t reccommend it as I doubt it’s the best place for it. Thus, I doubt that telling anyone Spong is just as good as anywhere is a good idea, either.
—————————————————————————-
Dan,
If someone taught about God’s “quadrilateral nature”, they would be just as guilty of heresy as Spong, and thus, not be a Christian. If what someone preaches is clearly contradictory to Scripture, they have created their own god. Love ‘em nonetheless, but they ain’t Christian with a false belief like that.
“As we disagree on what it means to love our enemies (You think it means we can kill them and their children and neighbors).”
What you put in parenthesis is, as stated, a blatant lie. Stop doing that. You continue to accuse others of bearing false witness against you while the whole time you continue posting comments like this. That means you are lying and being a hypocrite about it. Unnecessary.
“If God, the Creator of the Universe says the Bible is His word, he is not lying, kidding, or even mistaken. Take it as fact.”
This is an adding to of God’s Word. God never called the 66 books of the Bible “his word.” Y’all are making extrabiblical assumptions and then demanding that others do the same to be Christian. That, too, is extrabiblical and not sound doctrine.
If someone taught about God’s “quadrilateral nature”, they would be just as guilty of heresy as Spong, and thus, not be a Christian.
Why? The Bible doesn’t condemn (or condone) defining God in terms of having a quadrilateral nature any more than the Bible condemns (or condones) defining God in terms of a triune nature.
Again, this is an extrabiblical teaching. You are free to believe it if you want, but you can NOT support this belief biblically. You can suggest that there are biblical reasons to think that God as Trinity makes sense, but you can not say that the Bible demands that we agree with you.
Dan said:
“As we disagree on what it means to love our enemies (You think it means we can kill them and their children and neighbors).”</B?
And Marshall responded:
What you put in parenthesis is, as stated, a blatant lie. Stop doing that. You continue to accuse others of bearing false witness against you while the whole time you continue posting comments like this.
Yes! Yes! Yes! You ARE correct! That WAS a lie! That was the point!! That was a distortion of Neil’s and others’ position JUST THE SAME AS it is a distortion of my position to suggest that I don’t heed the Bible. BOTH ARE BALD FACED LIES.
The difference is that I made my lie to make a point, not because I believed it.
From Greg Koukl at Stand to Reason (speaking of the original writings, of course):
“The notion of inerrancy is secured by a very simple—yet sound—line of thinking. The Bible is God’s Word. God cannot err. Therefore, His Word cannot err.
If God is not the ultimate author, then man is. Man is fallible, God is not. There is really no middle ground. Either the ultimate source is God securing the Bible’s accuracy and authority, or the ultimate source is man ensuring nothing.”
—–
“Why would He permit His own word to be perverted to mean something He never intended it to mean?”
Mark – great points above. Re. your question, I used to wrestle with that a lot. I think it boils down to this: Just because the Bible is capable of being misunderstood doesn’t mean it is incapable of being understood.
People have the free will to be able to distort God’s Word if they like. They do it at their own risk, though.
—–
“This is an adding to of God’s Word. God never called the 66 books of the Bible “his word.” Y’all are making extrabiblical assumptions and then demanding that others do the same to be Christian. That, too, is extrabiblical and not sound doctrine.”
Dan, using this reasoning then you could ignore anything in the Bible and add Green Eggs and Ham if you wanted to. If you have so little faith in the Canon then quit pretending to be so feverishly in love with the Bible, and quit your little game of dismissing whatever you don’t like with your “66 books” ploy. You aren’t fooling many people.
I’d remind you of the Paul’s Word to Timothy, Neil:
“Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. And the Lord’s servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful.”
If you disagree with my statement that the Bible nor God never calls the 66 books of the Bible “God’s Word” then make your case. Show us where it says that or hints at it, even. But quit the demonization. Teach, don’t argue. Don’t belittle. Don’t accuse. Just teach.
Or not.
As I’ve stated repeated, I think the 66 books of the Bible are a revelation of God’s Word. Not God’s WHOLE Word, but useful for teaching us of God. And I DO love the Bible. Believe it or not.
“If God is not the ultimate author, then man is. Man is fallible, God is not. There is really no middle ground. Either the ultimate source is God securing the Bible’s accuracy and authority, or the ultimate source is man ensuring nothing.”
I almost agree with this. But there IS a middle ground: It’s fallible men, inspired by God, writing faithfully of their experiences WITH God. I trust God. I trust the honor and intention of those fallible men of the early church, but much less so. Their testimony, however, is almost all we have. Since I don’t need the kind of certainty of FACT that shows up around here pretending to be FAITH, my faith is not shaken by the fallibility of the men who wrote Scripture.
No one here who believes in the infallibility of the Bible is shaken by the belief that it is errant. That faith is quite intact and depended upon.
Those who believe that it is errant aren’t just arguing against us, but against Jesus Himself ultimately. That’s one debate they can not win. If someone has issues with the Bible, they need to take it up with the Author, since nothing Neil, Bubba, WOZ, and Timothy, Mom2 and others say will convice them.
“As I’ve stated repeated, I think the 66 books of the Bible are a revelation of God’s Word. Not God’s WHOLE Word, but useful for teaching us of God. And I DO love the Bible. Believe it or not.”
Hey Dan, this doesn’t quite address what you said earlier. In response to what someone said “If God, the Creator of the Universe says the Bible is His word, he is not lying, kidding, or even mistaken. Take it as fact.”
You said,
“This is an adding to of God’s Word. God never called the 66 books of the Bible “his word.” Y’all are making extrabiblical assumptions and then demanding that others do the same to be Christian. That, too, is extrabiblical and not sound doctrine.”
I’m a bit confused. It seems that you believe that the canon may possibly be incomplete, based on the first quoted statement, but you seem to think that what is currently in the canon is correct. However, your last statement seems to say otherwise, where you say the books currently in the canon may not necesarily belong there.
I’m not trying to trip you up or point out inconsistencies, I just don’t quite understand your viewpoint of the Bible. At first you say what we consider the Bible may not necessarily be accurate, but then it seems you say it is accurate, only incomplete.
Chance said:
At first you say what we consider the Bible may not necessarily be accurate, but then it seems you say it is accurate, only incomplete.
God bless you, Chance, for your even-handed and fair questioning of my positions.
But I have not said that the Bible is inaccurate, nor have I said it is incomplete.
I HAVE said that reading every passage literally will lead to an inaccurate representation of God. If you read the genocidal passages or kidnap passages literally, you have a god that commands atrocities.
As to the incomplete, thing, God’s Word – as in every Word that comes out of the Mouth of God – is complete. But the Bible is not – and no where avows itself to be – every word that comes out of the mouth of God. Rather, the Bible affirms “scripture” as God-breathed and useful for teaching and rebuke.
I believe what the Bible says literally right there. The scriptures are useful for that. They are God-breathed and useful for teaching. But no where does the Bible say that every word in the 66 books of the Bible must be literally taken or assumed to be “inerrant.” So, since the Bible doesn’t tell us that, I don’t assume that to be the case.
It’s funny, if you think about it. I’m suggesting that a literal reading of the Bible recommends against a literal reading of the Bible. And when it comes to “essentials” of the faith, I AM pretty much a literalist – opposed to adding hoops through which to jump that simply aren’t in the Bible.
It’s not unlike the Pharisees who, as I’ve noted, were interested in getting back to the essentials, but they weren’t content with the essentials as defined in Scriptures. They added and expounded, “When it says, “don’t work on the Sabbath,’ it means X, Y and Z…AND if you don’t believe X, Y and Z, you are an accursed sinner and doomed!”
Very much like many christian fundamentalists of today.
Pingback: Spong is wrong, part #17 « Eternity Matters
Pingback: Spong is wrong, part #17 « Wolves in Sheep's Clothing