There is good pluralism (”Numerous distinct ethnic, religious, or cultural groups are present and tolerated within a society”) and bad pluralism (”All religions are true and equally valid paths to God”). I have already written on the bad kind in Religious pluralism is intellectually bankrupt.
Erudite Redneck did a piece on the bad kind of pluralism that led to an interesting comment thread (by “interesting” I mean pointless and bizarre). I think he was quoting some group but it wasn’t clear. Here are selected portions:
While we have accepted the Path of Jesus as our Path, we do not deny the legitimacy of other paths God may provide humanity.
We affirm that the Path of Jesus is found wherever love of God, neighbor, and self are practiced together. Whether or not the path bears the name of Jesus, such paths bear the identity of Christ.
We confess that we have stepped away from Christ’s Path whenever we . . . have claimed Christianity is the only way, even as we claim it to be our way.
I knew these views self-refuting and oxymoronic, but the more I thought about it I realized they were arrogant as well. Here’s why:
Self-refuting: They claim that other paths to God are valid, but they specifically exclude Christians who think Jesus is the only way. But if all these paths are valid, why isn’t orthodox Christianity? And if orthodox Christianity is valid, then these other paths are not. Also, the definitions of “God” in these religions are mutually exclusive.
Oxymoronic: The Bible claims at least 100 times that Jesus is the only way to salvation. It only needs to say it once for it to be true, of course, but the theme is so strong that you have to work mighty hard to miss it. Pluralistic Christianity is an oxymoron. Christians originally called themselves The Way (see the Book of Acts), not A Way.
Have these people even read the Bible, and especially the Old Testament? With their reasoning you could cut out a couple Commandments (”You shall have no other gods before me” and “You shall not make for yourself an idol”).
Arrogant: While couched in inclusive language, it is actually a rather prideful position. They say that regardless of whom other religions say they are worshiping (say, Allah) that they are really worshiping Jesus. But do pluralistic Muslims pat us on the head and say, “Go ahead and worship Jesus. That’s OK, because we know you are really following Allah.” Of course not.
Ergun Mehmet Caner, a Christian scholar (and former Muslim) claims it is blasphemy to say Jehovah and Allah are the same God, and also said:
I have never met one intelligent Muslim who ever said that Allah of the Koran and Jehovah of the Bible are the same God.
One commenter thought it was haughty to claim that Jesus was the only way and that it denied others their humanity and religious beliefs. Those claims have it backwards, of course. It isn’t haughty to properly quote the Bible. And I respect people’s religious beliefs even if I disagree with them. And I appreciate their humanity enough to say that we can’t both be right.
Pluralists simply don’t understand the logical law of non-contradiction: You can’t have a personal God (Christianity) and an impersonal God (Islam) at the same time, or be saved by faith in Christ alone (Christianity) and by good deeds (everybody else), etc.
Filed under: Apologetics, Christian worldview, False teachers | Tagged: Bible, Christian, christianity, God, Jesus, pluralism, religion
Glad to give you something to rant about! of course, I think you totally misunderstand my point.
You are saying that I said that Jesus was not the only way, and that is absolutely NOT what i said. Not at all.
You are saying that I believe all religions are valid. Absolutely not. I believe that NO RELIGIONS ARE VALID.
You keep mixing up The Way OF Jesus with the ways TO Jesus.
And other stuff that you either simply can’t “get” — or you’re being deliberately misleading to bolster your own views. But, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.
BTW, re: “I think he was quoting some group but it wasn’t clear.”
Um, my use of quote marks, saying “Read more of the Phoenix Affirmations” and providing a link — that’s pretty clear attribution.
The feigned confusion you employ when you encounter something you disagree with or just don’t like is pretty funny, in a sad way.
Weak rant this post is, all in all. The whole structure is contrived, and yer the one who did the contrivin’ — not me!
Thanks, ER. The nice thing about blogging is that people can read the thread and comments for themselves and draw their own conclusions – on topics such as you saying that Wahabi Islam can and does lead people to Christ, from Geoffrey saying that “Furthermore, any other discussion will be fruitless, because we will come back to quoting the Bible again . . .,” you falsely claiming that I try to keep Christ in a box and set up barriers to keep people from Christ (even though I specifically said we’re saved by grace through faith), you saying that you don’t have to be a theist to be a Christian, etc.
“You keep mixing up The Way OF Jesus with the ways TO Jesus.”
No, you clearly said that these other religions and groups were ways to Jesus. I disagree with that.
My apologies for not understanding your Phoenix Affirmations link. There were a bunch of links and I honestly wasn’t sure what you were quoting from. My bad.
Well, we are talking past each other. YES, there is more than one way TO Jesus! There is only one way OF Jesus. Many ways TO. Absolutely.
Yes, I said this, and I meant it: “For if the rocks cry out out, and if God can raise up stones as children of Abraham, then YES, Wahabi Islam, or the Lions Club, or the Ku Klux Klan, or a Saturday night drunk at the end of a dirt road in the middle of nowhere, can — and such like DO — lead to Christ.”
Re, “box.” I asked you why you leep the power of Christ in a box, or, actrually, why you try and fail to — and you answered. You are so dishonest to misrepresent the exchange here!
Neil said: On your blog you wrote: “Why do you keep the power of Christ — I should say, try and fail to — keep the power of Christ in a box, Neil?”
And here I wrote: “you falsely claiming that I try to keep Christ in a box”
You claimed that I try to keep Christ in a box, and I quoted you on that. Your claim is completely false. There is nothing dishonest about me pointing that out, but there is something incoherent about you claiming I’m being dishonest. (Unless you are quibbling over me leaving out “power of,” as if that somehow makes your point better.)
Yes, I said this, and I meant it: “Heck fire, I don’t even think one necessarily has to be a theist to be a Christian.”
Neil said: Talk about a self-refuting statement. Try reconciling that with Hebrews 11:6, or virtually any passage in the Bible for that matter.
Geoffrey speaks for himself.
Are ya distracted today, bubba. You are not your usually formidable self. Your misusing some of my words to try to make me look like a complete heathen, when I will cop only to heretical tendencies, and you use my words accurately as if they condemn me by definition. Get some coffee.
Grrrr. One of my most hated misspellings: “You’re misusing …” not “your misusing …”
Tomato, tomahto on whether I “claimed” you keep the power of Christ in a box or loaded a question and asked you same.
But re this: “Heck fire, I don’t even think one necessarily has to be a theist to be a Christian.” I said nothing at all — nada! — about what is true. I said, and I repeat, that I don’t thik that one has to be a theist in order to be a Christian — that is, I don’t think that one necessarily has to BELIEVE in a supernatural deity in order to follow Christ. And I stand by that. Again, I have said NOTHING about what actually IS. I am commenting here only on whether I think belief in a supernatural deity is required for a person to be a Christian. And I think not. As for Hebrews 11:6: I reckon it depends on what yer definition of “draw near” is — and it has a lot to do with time! God draws people to God’s self in God’s own time — not yours! Not mine! It cracks me UP the way you think everything is just so perfectly clear. “Just saddle up, boys! We all got our tickets punched, and those who don’t can just go to hell! ” Holy crap. And there is an adjective and verb there — not an exclamation. As I said in another venue earlier: Knowledge is one thing. Faith/trust is another. Knowledge is not redemptive.
“Tomato, tomahto on whether I “claimed” you keep the power of Christ in a box or loaded a question and asked you same.”
Seems odd to fall back on semantics after you accused me of dishonesty.
“It cracks me UP the way you think everything is just so perfectly clear.”
That is just wrong on several levels. First, I think plenty of things aren’t clear. It is just that the exclusivity of Jesus isn’t one of them.
But that is irrelevant, because you are trying to dismiss my arguments just because you think I’m confident in them. It is doubly wrong, because 1) that has nothing to do with whether they are true or not and 2) you are equally confident in your views. Go back and read your pieces and ask if you think your positions are unclear. You are quite confident and emphatic about your views. I have no issue with that.
The difference is that I don’t dismiss your arguments just because you are passionate about them.
I do agree that we are now talking past each other. Let’s aim to do better in 2008
I’m sure ER means well and wants to include everyone. That sounds good, but is it the Truth. I believe that only those drawn by the Holy Spirit will come to the Father through faith in Jesus Christ, His Son and that by His grace. I think we have to be careful trying to give assurance to people that they are alright, just because it fits what we want to believe. There is a way that seems right to man, but the end thereof is death. This is why the validity of the Bible, God’s inspired Word must be the source of instruction and it is by the hearing of the Word that makes the Great Commission an important part of our obedience.
Neil, if you think I am confident in my views because I am emphatic, then you know neither the definition of confidence nor emphasis.
Neil said: Please read more carefully. I said you were “confident and emphatic,” not “confident because you are emphatic.”
And I’m sorry, but I think this whole post is dishonest. You saw what you regard as red meat over at place, and you’ve lashed out without your usual due diligence. In the process, you’ve misrepresented my views.
Neil said: That’s odd. You just misrepresented what I said. The words are right there. And you falsely accused me of being dishonest earlier in the thread. Give it a rest, ER.
Oh, and I freely admit that I dismiss your arguments here because I think they’re based on false assumptions about what I believe, misreadings of whast I’ve written, and a wrong-headed exclusive interpretation of the Gospel that is wrong-headedno matter how traditional it is. NOT bedcause yer confident; I don’t know where you get that, either.
Neil said: I showed you where I got it. You are dismissing my views because I think they are clear. And, as usual, you are saying my view of the Gospel is wrong headed even though I’m backing my views with scripture and you’re backing yours up with ???
You supported this quote, which is pure heresy: “We confess that we have stepped away from Christ’s Path whenever we . . . have claimed Christianity is the only way, even as we claim it to be our way.” You can cry all day long that I misquoted you but it is right there.
Again, the Bible clearly proclaims that Jesus is the only way. That quote specifically says that it is wrong to say Christianity is the only way. Christianity = following Christ. To say that others follow Christ without knowing it is unbiblical and wrong. See the story of Cornelius in the Book of Acts, for example. (I know, there I go quoting that book again!)
Since this has gotten rather unproductive, how about if we call it quits or address some other points?
Hi! I agree with you, in that there is good pluralism, and bad pluralism. Although I probably have a slightly broader view of good pluralism. But certainly one has to be careful when saying “All religions lead to God”. Each religion has some different teachings which may be very incompatible with what I believe, so while I do appreciate, respect and love people who follow those religions, I can’t accept their beliefs as being equally true – To do this would make me a hypocrite!
However, I would like to raise a couple of points. In Islam (as in Judaism) we believe in only one indivisible Creator who has no partners, although He has many names. So we believe ‘God’, ‘YHWH’, ‘Allah’, and ‘Eloh’ are this same Almighty Creator.
Jews and Muslims don’t worship Jesus. The ‘Holy Trinity’ is a belief unique to trinitarian branches of Christianity, not held by Jews, Unitarian/Arian Christians and Muslims. Hence, why we don’t worship Jesus, but we do worship God.
The Trinity is not specifically referred to in the Holy Bible, and is not found in the Old Testament. Rather even Jesus himself taught that God is One:
“The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.” (Mark 12:29)
As in the Holy Qur’an:
“And your God is One God: There is no god but He, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.” (Holy Qur’an 2:163)
Or in the Old Testament:
And God spoke all these words:
“I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
“You shall have no other gods before me.
“You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.
You shall not bow down to them or worship them;” (Exodus 20:1-5)
God is not a man… (Numbers 23:19)
Hence, while Muslims don’t worship Jesus, we do believe in the same God as Jesus!
Merely because two different books say the same thing about the divine being that is supposed to have inspired or authored the book does not mean that they are the same one. For example, a book written by James Patterson could say “James Patterson is a man,” and a book written by Tom Clancy could say the same thing, except that it would not make them the same man. It just means they are both a man. And furthermore, the version of the Bible that you quoted there (I’m not sure which it is) is not accurate in its statement of that verse. Read it from the King James:
The problem with the version you quoted is that it does not make it clear that there is one Lord, and one only.
Allah and God are not the same, and any Muslim or Christian that claims that they are is not a true follower of what they claim to believe.
Perhaps the Bible does not reference the “trinity” by name, but it makes it abundantly clear that there is a three in one relationship.
Re, “Neil said: Please read more carefully. I said you were ‘confident and emphatic,’ not’“confident because you are emphatic’ ”
I stand corrected.
But this postg is dishonest becaused it is dishonest. Sleep on it. If you still think it’s honest, well, OK. We disagree.
You started this — this very personal broadside. But now, YOU may have the last word.
I have to confess, the idea of the Trinity has always confused me. How can God be three and God be one? But I decided a long time ago that God can do anything He wants to do.
I also decided on this representation: draw a circle and split into three sections. In the first section, write “Father”, the second says “Jesus” and the last says “The Holy Spirit”. Then erase the lines.
It’s limited in it’s interpretation, but then I’m limited too.
Re, “but then I’m limited too …”
As am I.
Since you haven’t given your last word, Neil, I’ll add one.
Re, ‘ “We confess that we have stepped away from Christ’s Path whenever we . . . have claimed Christianity is the only way, even as we claim it to be our way.” You can cry all day long that I misquoted you but it is right there.’
It IS right there: I deny that CHRISTIANITY, the bureacracy that has grown up around Jesus, is the only way. It is not. But Christianity is no more Jesus Christ than “football” is the Oklahoma State Cowboys, who won their bowl game tonight.
You really got to quit using words that mean different things interchangebly.
Christianity would mean the following of Christ, ER, so sorry, Christianity, true Christianity, is Jesus Christ. Your claim is ridiculous on its face.
[...] – Using words in his titles such as “oxymoronic” and “arrogant” (and in the same title, no less), Neil keeps hitting hard and often at social, political, and religious [...]
Don’t feel bad E.R. One of my most common errors (that spell check doesn’t catch) is replacing you’re with your. We all know that sometimes the fingers move faster than the mind. At least they often do in my case.
W&F: No, it’s not. As some of my fundamentalist brethren are fond of saying, going to church doesn’t make one a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes one a car. Obviously, those who claim to be following Jesus, yet persist in feeding war and violence and supporting candidates who do, clearly aren’t following Jesus — buit I do not deny that they are Christians. Whether they have a right relationship with God is another thing entirely — and that is entirely up to them to work out. I’ll call ‘em brother, and I’d break bread with ‘em in my own faith or church community. But I won’t be, you know, calling ‘em to go see a movie or anything.
Thanks, TT. There, their and they’re is another booger.
By that definition anyone who supports a pro-choice candidate is not following Jesus. Abortion kills many times more than war and capital punishment combined.
There can be a case for a just war (I’m talking in principal, not about a specific war). Countries have a right to defend themselves.
The only case for a “just abortion” is to save the life of the mother, and those are no more than 1% of the cases.
Neil,
I have to disagree with you when you say that “anyone who supports a pro-choice candidate is not following Jesus.”
I know a lot of sinners who are following Jesus. Maybe not 100%, but they’re trying. Maybe they’re mistaken about what is sin and what isn’t. The Holy Spirit needs to work harder in their lives (and mine too).
But why is this one sin (abortion) greater than the others? What makes it different?
Hi Randy – sorry I wasn’t clear. I was just taking ER’s argument to its logical conclusion. We are all still sinners. And when we choose political candidates we’ll always be choosing the lesser of two evils.
Sorry to disappoint you, Neil, but you will get no argument from me over abortion. It’s wrong. How to discourage it is where we disagree. And, we probably disagree on which is the lesser of the evils, abortion or war. I say war. I also say that there is so justification for war — even if it seems necessary. If somebody busts down my door and threatens my family, and I shoot him dead, and I am within my rights, and good prevails (that is, my wife and kid and myself all survive), I still have broken the commandment: Thou shalt not kill. (It really does not mean murder; now *that’s* a great myth. …)
ER, you and I agree that abortion is wrong, but there is no one that can be more innocent than the unborn baby in the womb and that baby is totally unable to defend itself. Abortion cannot be compared to war in that way. (still my friend
The innocence of the victim is one way to judge it which is the most wrong, war or abortion. But my unwillingness to strip a mother of her human right not to have her body invaded by another person, or the state, tilts me the other way. I want to persuade the mother not to have an abortion; I want to make it so easy to carry a pregnancy to term that only a real devil would have an abortion. I do not want to see it criminalized. If your rights end where my nose begins, as the saying goes, then my rights certainly end where a woman’s womb begins — and as long as the fetus is within the mother, its rights, such as they are, are so tangled up with the mother’s as to be indistinguishable, and therefore not a consideration on their own.
Getting off track here in a couple ways, but to close this thought out . . . I only brought up abortion as an example of how ER’s “not following Jesus” reasoning would play out.
The “tangled rights”and “nose” illustration are fictions. The unborn human and the mother should both not have the right to be crushed and dismembered. The mother’s body wasn’t “invaded” – she got pregnant. Such “invasion” rhetoric was dreamed up by pro-aborts to demonize the unborn. She can do whatever she wants with her womb provided that it doesn’t kill another human being. To criminalize abortion for the doctors, for example, would not be invading the woman’s body by the state. It would be protecting the unborn.
“I said, and I repeat, that I don’t thik that one has to be a theist in order to be a Christian — that is, I don’t think that one necessarily has to BELIEVE in a supernatural deity in order to follow Christ. And I stand by that. Again, I have said NOTHING about what actually IS. I am commenting here only on whether I think belief in a supernatural deity is required for a person to be a Christian.”
ER, I’m starting to wonder if you believe ANYTHING that the Bible says.
Most of your theology seems to come from the book of ER, not the Bible.
Following Christ is not the same thing as being a Christian. (I John 2:19)
Worshipping more than one God is not acceptable to God.(Exodus 20:3)
If you claim Christ as your Savior, but deny that He is God, then you are worshipping a false God, not Jesus Christ of the Bible.
“God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.” John 4:24
Someone who does not believe that Jesus is God is not worshipping God.
“That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.” John 5:23
The Commandment that says “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” is broken when one is not a theist. Breaking one commandment makes one guilty of all. (James 2:10). Which makes one in need of a Savior (Romans 3:23). One who doesn’t believe in the one true God can’t be saved, because Jesus is God.
Neil, they’re not “fictions.” You just disagree with them.
Ms. Green: Feel free to wonder about me all you like. And that is a very nice string of verses.
ER, It is your words that cause one to wonder. I think sometimes I know what you think and then you turn around with some of the most confusing ideas that in my less than 200 years, I have never found in the most reliable, precious Book, the Bible. Doubts need to be put to rest, not fed and gloried in. Either we settle within ourselves what provides for our salvation and remain steadfast or we will have to answer for all those that stumble because of our poor witness.
In reply to washed and forgiven:
I was quoting from the NIV. I have many versions of the Bible, but I often refer to the NIV or the NASB as they’re usually fairly well regarded for reliability. Although, of course no translation is 100% accurate, or a substitute for knowing the text in its original language.
I am not comparing two novels, but rather referring to two Holy books. One which Christians follow, and the other which Muslims follow. Each is believed to be the very Word of God by their followers.
Allah is Arabic, and translates as ‘The God’, Creator of the Heavens and the Earth, the One and only God. Allah is also used to refer to Almighty God by Arabic speaking Jews and Christians.
Just saying “Allah and God are not the same, and any Muslim or Christian that claims that they are is not a true follower of what they claim to believe.”, doesn’t change anything. If what you allege is true, you should present some evidence. Merely stating they are not the same God doesn’t prove a thing.
Furthermore, what does it matter if they are the same God? Trinitarian Christianity and Islam differ on theological grounds, in a similar way Trinitarian Christianity differs from Judaism. Muslims hold a very similar theological position on the nature of God as Jews and Arian/Unitarian Christians. This again proves Allah is the same God. Indeed in Judaism, Christianity and Islam there is no room for gods, there is only The Creator, Almighty God who is and always will be.
The doctrine of The Trinity and hence whether Jesus is God incarnate, was developed by Christian theologians after the Bible was written. Many try to refer to the Bible to support this, but the scriptures themselves don’t provide substantial support for it. The concept of the Trinity is a belief regarding the nature of God. We need to be careful not to confuse doctrines with whether the Arabic name ‘Allah’ refers to God or not.
For more info on the names of God, please feel free to read my post on this subject:
http://wulfrunasufi.wordpress.com/names-of-god-in-the-holy-bible-and-holy-quran/
Neil,
Sorry to take the discussion off topic (again – I’m good at it). I just know too many people who make abortion the litmus test (to borrow the phrase). While it’s an important subject, it’s not at the top of my list when choosing a political candidate.
And I agree, we’ll have to choose which of the two (or more) sinners as the best candidate.
Really? Then answer me this… what did the Bible, and Christ, mean when they said the following?
Merely stating that they ARE the same and giving no evidence as such is what really doesn’t make it so. Especially since the Bible, if not the Koran (I wouldn’t know because I’ve never read it) makes it quite clear that the God in the Bible is exclusive to the God in the Bible. And as to the novel comparison, you obviously didn’t get the point of it, or chose to ignore it, so I’ll let it drop. My guess is that others will get the point, though.
Paul, here are a few verses about the divinity of Jesus: http://www.whatthebibleteaches.com/wbt_130.htm
One of my favorites is Thomas’ exclamation: John 20:28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”
Perhaps I should do a post on the attributes of Jehovah and Allah (or does anyone have any good links?).
Why don”t you start with a piece on why, if there is One God, God saw fit to give the commandment: not to worsip any other god? The commandment doesn’t say not to make an ungod a god (such as wealth, or a person, or oneself). It says not to worsip another god, as if there WERE other gods, but that the Jewish God was the biggest and baddest. Why is that?
[...] the religion that isn’t really a religion. I observed several of these issues at work in the comments on this post by Neil, particularly those by Erudite Redneck and Paul. I’ll address one of those in this [...]
“Why don”t you start with a piece on why, if there is One God, God saw fit to give the commandment: not to worsip any other god?”
Does He not refer to Himself as a jealous God? Reason enough it would seem to me. I’d say the implication inferred is that only God can be worshipped, so to worship ANYTHING else is to make it a god. Does one make God the center of one’s life, or does one make something else the center? There can only be one center, God.
I think it’s practical advice as well.
Hidy, MA!
Re, “to worship ANYTHING else is to make it a god …”
I agree. And that’s the usual interpretation of the commandment. But that’s not what the verse says. It says “thou shalt have no other gods before me.”
So, does the commandment assume actual other gods — not just things we might make more important than God — or not? I mean, did the Jews believe there was one God? Or did they believe that theit God was the God that should be worhiped? Two different things.
And a simple reading of some situations in the OT suggests that it wasn’t a contest between God and No god, but a contest between gods — between the “true” God, that is, the God of the Israelites, and a “false” god, a god that the Israelites didn’t follow. But a god, if one were to ask them, nonetheless. Just a “bad” god.
What is to made of that?
“Why don”t you start with a piece on why, if there is One God, God saw fit to give the commandment: not to worsip any other god?”
Here’s the whole piece: People create false gods.
Romans 1:25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
Here’s the whole piece: People create false gods.
Well said, Neil. Complete summary in just a few words!
Nice try. The commandment doesn’t say “false gods.” It says “gods.”
Neil said: You’re kidding, right? Is your claim that there really are other gods that exist? What is your point?
ER- Honestly, that makes no sense. You might want to re-read and rethink this piece. It went from bad philosophy to um…. ridiculous. Do you really believe this stuff or are you trying to play devil’s advocate to drive a conversation?
Elisa: I confess only that I think as I blog, not always before I I no more consider most of my blog comments definitive pronouncements than I do the snippets of conversation that come in any discussion or debate.
Neil, I’m saying that I see suggestions in the Bible that some of the Israelites believed there were more than one god, but that their God was the God of Gods, so to speak. Whether there are or are not more than one god is not what I’m talking about. I’m fairly certain that those who crafted the golden calf at the foot of Sinai thought they were worshiping a god, not a statue.
I guess my point is taht you should make the case that the Bible speaks only of monotheism rather than assuming it.
And it was sparked by your remark: “Perhaps I should do a post on the attributes of Jehovah and Allah (or does anyone have any good links?).” And I’m serious. I’d like to see a post by you on the subject.
(BTW, I never heard the term “Christian pluralism” before this post, nor even thought about such a concept. Y’all assume more method to my madness than I intend.)
Was the contest between God and Baal understood by those present to be an actual contest between rival gods? Or was it a choreographed event provide justification for the killing of the prophets of Baal?
Without the time to address this issue in any detail, ER, let me make sure I understand: Are you actually suggesting that the monotheism of Judaism is an open question?
I’m wondering what should be made of the suggestions in Scripture that Judaism came to understand its theism as monotheism over time.
I’m wondering why, considering the numerous names for God in the O.T., each of which is tied to a specific role God was playing in certain Jews’ lives at certain times, or tied to certain revelations to various groups of God’s people as God deemed prudent — I’m wondering whether, given that, it’s wise to so eagerly and bluntly distinguish between God and Allah.
Let’s look at it this way:
Would God create another religion to worship HIM that was different from the Bible? Why would HE create something that would not recognize HIS Son and have another “path” of salvation, other than HIS Son, who said that He was the Way, the Truth and the life and who died for our sins? Would God make Jesus, HIS beloved Son, out to be a liar then?
No.
So, is God of the Bible distinguishable from Allah of the Koran?
To be blunt- absolutely distinguishable.
Ah. You have a much richer concept of “revelation,” and a lesser concept, if any at all, of the evolution of humankind’s God-consciousness. Hence so many of our different views.
“. . . I’m wondering whether, given that, it’s wise to so eagerly and bluntly distinguish between God and Allah.”
I’m not sure where the “eagerly” part came from but I think that once you see the descriptions from the Koran and the Bible you’ll see they are quite irreconcilabe.
<if any at all, of the evolution of humankind’s God-consciousness.
This is prime example of man creating God in his own image.
Man’s “God conciousness”, as you call it, will always fall short, because man is flawed. Our only concept of God can be what imformation He has given us about Himself. He did give that to us through Scripture and through His Son, Jesus Christ. But when man decides that he is wise enough to determine Who God is on his own, he is worshipping an idol.
My html failed me! The first sentence in my last post was a quote from ER, not my own words, and was SUPPOSED to be in italics.
Actually, one can see it is the example of humankind struggling to use its flawed perspective to understand God’s revelation of God’s self to a flawed people. Yes! It will always fall short! To think that anyone can flawlessly comprehend such revelations in anything approaching confidence is worhiping oneself and one’s own ability, which is worshiping an idol: Self.
I really do wish it all were as simple and straightforward as you say it is. But it’s not. And I will not be banished from the fold, as you, Ms. Green, are so quick to do, for being honest about my blindness.
The term “son of God” doesn’t necessarily indicate divinity. Most Christians believe it does, this is because of Christian Theology. However, this interpretation is not necessarily what a first century Jewish person would understand from this term. The same applies to calling God “Father”. The Essenes and the Nazarenes, both of which were essentially Jewish sects called God “Father”, but they had a very Jewish understanding of God. What they meant is allegorical, not literal, ie. God is our spiritual Father, and cares for humanity in a way somewhat comparable, to how a father cares for his children. When Jesus said:
“But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” (John 1:12-13) NASB
Did Jesus mean this literally, or allegorically? If the latter, as I believe, then maybe this applies to Jesus too. In which case Jesus’ status as ‘Son of God’ wouldn’t be unique, but rather an indication of his piety and closeness to God. In a similar way Muslims call very pious people “Awliya” (singular: Wali-Allah) the “friends of God”.
The Christian tradition in the West has become increasing isolated from the Christian tradition in the East, and its Semitic roots in the Middle East and Ethiopia. The tradition practised there is much older, and to really understand the Christian message, one should look deeply into its origins, and for Christian groups which are the true heirs of these early churches. If we superimpose a modern Western understanding, upon what is essentially an ancient Semitic faith, without really trying to understand it, we will inevitably draw the wrong conclusions.
Arabs are Semites too, their language is closely related to Hebrew and Aramaic, and Islam is a Semitic faith. When we look at Christianity and Islam, keeping their Semitic roots in mind it is easy to see the connections between them. It is also quite obvious that Allah is another name for God Almighty of the Bible. But when looked at through Western eyes, without taking this into account, it is possible to miss that, which is really quite obvious.
Most English speaking Christians don’t call God, “Yahweh” or “Elohim” or “El-Shaddai” but rather God, Lord, God Almighty or another English equivalent. The same applies to many English speaking Muslims. In regular conversation with both Muslims and none-Muslims, I often refer to Allah as God, The Almighty, The Lord, Our Creator, God Almighty, as well as Allah, and the same is true of other Muslims. We’re referring to the same Almighty God who created everything that exists. The same God of the Bible.
If you haven’t actually read the Holy Qur’an, how can you say anything about it, you have no knowledge of it! Actually, I’m not sure where the Bible “ makes it quite clear that the God in the Bible is exclusive to the God in the Bible”, and I do study the Bible a lot.
Christians often seem to forget, the book they call the Bible is a library of many books. The majority of which form Old Testament, also know as the Tanakh. These were originally, and still are the Jewish Scriptures. The early Christians used to refer to these often, and there are many quotes in the New Testament from the Old. Jesus is indeed the Messiah prophesied in the Jewish scriptures. Therefore, Christianity is justified by the Jewish scriptures, and the Old Testament states:
“God is not a man…” Numbers (23:19) KJV
“And God spake all these words, saying, I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;” Exodus (20:1-5) KJV
If we are to understand, as Trinitarians suggest, that Jesus is not a human messenger who God inspired, but rather Almighty God Himself incarnated in human form, then surely this casts a doubt on whether the God of the New Testament is really the God of the Old Testament! This is surely one of the reasons Christianity has such a old and developed theological tradition, to explain this conundrum, especially within the Roman Church, and the Protestant churches which broke away from it.
In the NIV, there is a footnote stating that “before me”, in Exodus (20:3) can also be translated “besides me” meaning God has no partners, doesn’t this rule out a Trinity? This also means that the God of the Old Testament is described in exactly the same way as Allah in the Holy Qur’an.
“O men! call to mind the grace of Allah unto you! Is there a Creator other than Allah to give you
Sustenance from heaven or earth? There is no god but He: how then are ye deluded away from the Truth?” Holy Qur’an (35:3)
“Knowest thou not that to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth! And besides Him ye have neither patron nor helper” Holy Qur’an (2:107)
“We have sent thee inspiration as We sent it to Noah and the Messengers after him; We sent inspiration to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob and the Tribes to Jesus, Job, Jonah, Aaron, and Solomon and to David We gave the Psalms.” Holy Qur’an (4:163)
The God of Islam is the God of the Old Testament, this is the reason why Jews and Muslims have no theological disagreements with one another about the nature of God. Trinitarian Christians, on the other hand, do disagree on this subject, with Jews and Muslims, and none-Trinitarian Christians too…
Allah is obviously The God, Creator of the Heavens and the Earth, who inspired all true prophets throughout the ages. Why is it so hard for some people to accept that Muslims really do believe in Almighty God? Just because Muslims have another name for Him in Arabic, in a similar way we call Him Almighty God in English However, if you believe in the god of human doctrines and theology, is that god really the same God of the Bible? We can play games with words, but God knows who He is, and who really believes in Him. God is not going to condemn anyone for calling Him by a name, such as Allah, God Almighty or Shangdi which can only rightfully apply to Him anyway, and can never be correctly used for any other…
I’ll say nothing more, Mr. Armstrong, than that you go to great lengths and assumptions to prove that Allah and the Christian God are somehow the same.
It seems that Paul believes that Allah and Jehovah are one in the same and that Jesus is not God.
It also seems that ER believes there are many names for God and indeed many gods and we can’t know which one is “the right” god.
Both overlap in the many names for god.
Is that a fair (if greatly simplified) representation?
Paul, I haven’t read the Koran and can’t speak about Allah’s character. From watching the news, it seems that the Allah worshiped by many Muslims is very, very different than Jehovah. The fact that many nations who proclaim to be Muslim wish death on Jews, seems to provide evidence.
If you believe these people are not “true” Muslims, please don’t post your real name, I fear for your life.
I do occasionally use different names for God, El-Shaddai, Jehovah, Yahweh and even use Yeshua for Jesus (thanks to an introduction from some Messianic Jews). I won’t use Allah, because my (limited) understanding of Allah is very different from Jehovah. I don’t have time (or desire) to research who Allah really is.
This segways to my comments to ER. As you indicated, there are many names of God in the Old Testament. I believe that there is also evidence that the Israelites also believed there are many gods. The golden calf and Baal are two examples.
I also believe that there are and were some very real demons. In the New Testament, there was one named Legion. These demons possess a certain power and many were confused that the demons were god. When the Israelites worshipped Baal, I believe they were worshipping a demon.
Today, we have many gods. How can you know which god is the True God? Only by reading His Word and getting to know Him.
I probably will never read the Koran, nor will I (probably) read the Book of Mormon. From an academic point, both would be interesting. I put both books in the same category. Both proclaim to be inspired, but I don’t consider them to be the word of God. There are other books that fal into the same category. But the Bible, yes a library of books, TRULY IS the inspired Word of God.
I’d say Mr. Armstrong has posted the most thoughtful and infromed comment on this thread. And I thank him.
Paul Armstrong, I think there are a couple of emphatic differences between the Jewish understanding of God and the Muslim understanding of God.
For one thing, Jews do not believe that Mohammad is a true prophet and therefore they reject the authority of the Koran. They also do not believe that their Scripture has been corrupted and needs to be superceded by a book such as the Koran.
More fundamentally, Jews believe that God is consistent, and I certainly stand to be corrected, but it seems to me that Muslims believe that God could be capricious. It seems to me that Islam teaches that God is ultimately unknowable, not simply that we cannot know everything about Him, but that what we do know about Him is subject to change. His justice and His love are not eternal constants about which we can be assured. The Muslim conception of God seems to be almighty, but not holy.
It’s not just a problem of nomenclature, it really is about deep theological differences.
And, frankly, a person who really thought “Jews and Muslims have no theological disagreements with one another about the nature of God” would have no problem with a Muslim converting to Judaism. All the sometimes quite harsh penalties for converting out of Islam would be exempted in that one case.
Paul A., do you think it’s perfectly alright for a Muslim to convert and become a Jew? There’s no problem with it whatsoever? Really?
Hi Paul,
“The term “son of God” doesn’t necessarily indicate divinity.”
Actually, it does, but even if it didn’t there are many other passages indicating his divinity – see here, for example – http://www.whatthebibleteaches.com/wbt_130.htm Or read the Book of Colossians. Or John. To say that Christians didn’t think Jesus was God is completely false. In fact, the Gnostic heresies were false because they denied Jesus’ deity, not his humanity (it was one of the things the Da Vinci Code got exactly backwards).
“The God of Islam is the God of the Old Testament, this is the reason why Jews and Muslims have no theological disagreements with one another about the nature of God.”
Uh, yeah, and that’s why they get along so well?
“We can play games with words, but God knows who He is, and who really believes in Him.”
Yes, but the question is whether both are the same.
The natures of God and Allah are radically different. Only a liberal Christian could say they were the same (that isn’t a compliment), but then they have a lot of trouble with opposites – http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2007/07/06/opposites/ .
God is harder on sin than Allah. He weighs your deeds in the balance. But the real God can’t stand any sin of any kind. All sins must be punished. You can take the punishment yourself or let Jesus take it for you and have your sins imputed to his account and his perfection imputed to yours.
There is no assurance in Islam where there is in Christianity.
Allah is an impersonal god while Jehovah is personal.
The Koran is obviously wrong on the death of Jesus. Even non-Christian sources note that Jesus died on the cross. The myth of a Judas stand-in / body double were created over 500 years later.
Islam claims that the Bible has been changed over the years and can’t be fully trusted, but textual criticism shows that this is false.
My point is that Allah and Jehovah are not the same. It is illogical to say otherwise.
I see you have some troubles grasping the Trinity. That is common, even for Christians. I encourage you to keep searching.
Peace,
Neil
There is another argument that Paul Armstrong makes that should be repudiated in its own comment, namely the idea that the Incarnation is a wholly alien concept to Judaism.
If we are to understand, as Trinitarians suggest, that Jesus is not a human messenger who God inspired, but rather Almighty God Himself incarnated in human form, then surely this casts a doubt on whether the God of the New Testament is really the God of the Old Testament!
Ahem.
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government will be upon his shoulder, and his name will be called “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” – Isaiah 9:6
This clear Messianic prophecy from the Old Testament is a prophecy of the Incarnation: a child is born and a son is given and his name will be Mighty God (in Hebrew, “El”) and Everlasting Father.
I know that many Jews and most Muslims strongly reject the possibility that God can become a man, but they do so despite Jewish Scripture, not because of it.
The argument that the Christian claim of the divinity of Jesus is wholly foreign to Jewish Scripture doesn’t hold up among those who actually know Jewish Scripture.
Regarding the claims of the divinity of Jesus, reading much of Isaiah will really help people struggling with that. It’s quite clear who Jesus is.
Actually, I haven’t gone to “great lengths”, really… I could have written more, but I think I’ve made my point. Muslims and Jews don’t have major theological differences with each other. The present issues between some Muslims, and some Jews is political, not theological. Jews have lived in Muslim lands for many centuries, and for the most part thrived there until relatively recently. This certainly was the case when Jews were being persecuted by the Church in Europe. The Jews who fled the Spanish Inquisition found sanctuary in the Ottoman Empire, and their descendants still live quite happily in Turkey today.
Please distinguish between a religion, and its followers. I wouldn’t make a judgement about Christianity based upon the actions of some bad, or ignorant Christians, and I don’t think its right to judge any religion in this way. If Muslims really were as the media sometimes presents us to be, haven’t you considered that with over 1.3 billion of us in the world, the world would be in far more serious crisis than what is the case?
Personally, I don’t have a problem with a Muslim who should choose to convert to Judaism, or even Christianity. If that’s what he/she believes, who am I to stop him? Allah says in the Holy Qur’an “Let there be no compulsion in religion. Truth stands out clear from error” Holy Qur’an (2:256). This means that Muslims should allow people freedom with regards to religious belief.
But Paul, while I’m glad to hear that you endorse the individual’s religious freedom, that really doesn’t get to the heart of the issue.
If Jews and Muslims worship the same deity and “have no theological disagreements with one another about the nature of God,” then you shouldn’t look kindly on a Muslim converting to Judaism just on the grounds of religious freedom: you should see the conversion as ultimately irrelevant, right?
My question wouldn’t be answered by this:
“If that’s what he/she believes, who am I to stop him?”
It would be answered by this:
“Since Islam and Judaism are equivalent, what’s the difference?”
Y’all all should probably sit down for this:
http://www.citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000006202.cfm
Neil said: Ha! Wow, not sure who those guys are but that is pretty sad. All I know is that I didn’t vote for them.
What?!? Even the evangelicals are defecting!! I guess Neil is the only true Christian left in the world.
Bubba, I largely agree with you… Although there is a slight difference of course, as a Muslim believes Jesus is the Christ (Messiah), and a great prophet of God, and that Muhammad was the last and final messenger. But, certainly we have no significant difference in our understanding of God, or in the importance of prayer, charity, and living a clean life. Which is why God says in the Holy Qur’an:
“Those who believe (in the Qur’an) and those who follow the Jewish (Scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians† – Any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear nor shall they grieve.” Holy Qur’an [2:62]
† The ‘Sabians’ are usually understood to be the followers of John the Baptist.
Paul,
Please educate me. If what you are saying is true, Muslims should welcome Christians and Jews. Why is it we don’t see that happening. Granted the Muslims who behead Americans are extreme. But I have yet to see a Muslim publicly saying the things you say. Not a single Iraqi, Iranian or Saudi. The political and religous leaders all come out against Jews and Christians.
Be careful what you say and how you say it. I hope you’re using a pseudonym, lest you be next on some ayotollah’s list.
Snort! As if Christian “leaders” in this country — the ones you see on TV and in other media all the time — are representative of rank-and-file Christians!
Of course not, ER. Not all Christian “leaders” are representative. And yes, there are some extreme wackos who bomb abortion clinics, etc. These typically aren’t leaders.
I haven’t seen any Christian leaders actively calling for eradication of Muslims or Jews or even homosexuals.
I haven’t seen a Christian leader actively calling for a heretic’s death. If that were the case, many of the people posting here would have a price on their head.
There’s a vast difference.
“Just a “bad” god.” -ER
I think a better, more accurate way to say it would be, “pretend god”, or “make-believe god”.
Think of it this way:
I’ll go out on a not so thin and brittle limb here and say that we both believe that God created all things. If this is true, then your comments, if I’m reading them correctly, would mean that He also created rivals to Himself. This doesn’t make sense, so the only alternatives are that other gods would mean those created by man or those which are demons or Satan himself posing as a god. Either way, none of them are true gods, none are equal to God, none are to be woshipped, reveared, or treated as if they are God or on par with Him. I think that’s the bottom line and all we need to know on the subject.
Paul,
I think there’s a bit of a distinction required between whether Jews and Muslims both believe in the SAME God. They both may view their perceptions in the same manner, but I doubt that Jews believe the Muslim god is the same as theirs, whether the Muslims do or not. Clearly, from our perspective (I’m a Christian, but see our faith as the natural and intended evolution of the Jewish faith) this is not the case. Allah is a man-made god.
My understanding is as follows (in a quick and sloppy manner–the Bulls game I was awaiting has begun):
Muhammed was impressed with the religious education he was getting from the Jews in his area, but his education was spotty and incomplete. He at some point decided to teach what he was taught in an effort to be a leader of the faith in his area. Jews who heard his interpretations mocked his fuzzy perspectives and he rejected it, go off on his own until he had his “revelations”. These revelations were never experienced in the company of others, no one else heard or saw any contact by heavenly personnel. One had to rely on his honesty. When they didn’t, out came the sword. This loose bit of history suggests that his revelations were lies and his main goal was to “be” a prophet and the last word from God for the sake of his own glory. Had he not employed a thoroughly despotic strategy of evangelism, Islam wouldn’t exist today. Thus, his is a false god and not the god of the Bible, whether it’s the Christian or Jewish versions.
Of course you’re quite free to believe what you like.
“Of course you’re quite free to believe what you like.” As are you!
Randy, here are a few examples of Muslims joining hands with their Christian, and Jewish brothers and sisters…
http://www.unionoffaiths.com/
http://www.rumiforum.org/
http://www.sternberg-foundation.co.uk/
I didn’t check out your links, Paul. It is enough to know that there are indeed situations where people of different faiths can show solidarity based on their desire to be of one community. That has little to do with what the religions actually say about their gods and whether each faith is justified. Frankly, I believe the “moderate” Muslims are similar to liberal Christians in that they ignore the parts of their holy books for which they don’t much care. The difference to me is that the moderate Muslims are a benefit to mankind. So if you count yourself among them, good for you.
Actually, I’m really quite a traditional Muslim. I am a mureed (student or apprentice) of my Shaykh (spiritual teacher). My Shaykh is a mureed of his Shaykh, for about 40 generations going back to Muhammad, who was the first Shaykh of Islam.
This is the way Islam is supposed to be taught, by apprenticeship. Jesus Christ taught his disciples using a similar method, as they did the early Church.
When taught through this method by authentic teachers Islam is correctly understood. Islam itself is traditionally moderate. The reason why we have so many problems with some Muslims in the world, is because they’ve neglected this method, read a few things out of context and become radical, often self-appointed teachers of what they think is Islam. They do not speak for real Muslims.
The problem is, is that we find most of the “problems” the closer one gets to the source. Saudi Arabia is very intolerant of non-Muslims and they are very strict in their interpretaions regarding the Muslims who DO believe, but stray from certain elements. This is the case in most of the Middle East. So despite the lineage of your teachers, I wouldn’t wager against him being a product of taking things out of context or ignoring the true understanding of certain tracts.
Most of the sources of info I’ve read are based on the words and teachings of “authentic” Islamic apologists and scholars. And frankly, the notion of needing “authentic” instruction would seem to lend itself to all sorts of distortions, both accidental and purposeful. One doesn’t need intensive study by authentic teachers to understand the basic tenents of the Christian faith. A sincere seeker with an open mind could never misinterpret the Bible as have the militant Islamists with the Q’uran.
Re, “A sincere seeker with an open mind could never misinterpret the Bible as have the militant Islamists with the Q’uran.”
Crusades. American slavery. Patriarchy-Misogyny. “Civilizing” the Indians. … (fundamentalism itself, he muttered …)
Sorry! BZZZZ! Next contestant! Thanks for playing!
Have you actually explained what you believe, yet, ER? If you have, I haven’t seen it.
Respectfully, Paul, I must ask if you are absolutely clear on what it means to say that “Jesus is the Christ (Messiah)”.
The Messiah is the promised “anointed one” from Jewish Scripture. Jewish Scripture promises that a son will be born to us, whose name will be “Mighty God, Everlasting Father”; that is to say, Jewish Scripture promises the Incarnation of God, which I believe Muslims strongly deny.
Jewish Scripture promises that the Messiah will be crushed because of our sins, and that by the wounds of the Messiah, we will be healed, but Muslims believe that Jesus did not die on the cross.
And implicit in that promise is the idea that the Messiah will save us, and that we need saving. You write, “we have no significant difference in our understanding of God, or in the importance of prayer, charity, and living a clean life.”
I cannot say this emphatically enough: yes, there is a SIGNIFICANT difference.
As good as these things are, Christians are aware that prayer, charity, and clean living do not save us. That there is literally nothing we can do to deserve God’s approval.
Salvation comes by grace alone, through faith alone, because of Christ alone.
God’s grace — His infinite, unmerited love — is why we are saved. It’s not because of any works that we have done, but because of our faith in what God has already done to save us. And this salvation is possible only because God sent His Son Jesus Christ — fully God and fully man — to die on the cross and to be raised from the dead three days later.
Christians and Muslims agree on many (but not all) of what God’s ethical commands are, but it seems to me that Muslims believe that it is possible to obey those commands sufficiently to meet God’s standards. Knowing that God is holy and His standards require perfection, we Christians believe that we sinners can’t possibly please God through our trying to obey His perfect law.
Instead, we trust that God has done all that was required to reconcile us to Himself. His Son died and was raised so that we might be saved from the penalty of sin and adopted into His family, and His Holy Spirit dwells in us to purge us of the infection of sin and to bring us into maturity as His adopted children.
Christians do not pray and give alms in order to deserve Paradise. God has given us the free gift of grace, and so we pray in adoration of Him and we help others in gratitude to His helping us.
That’s a huge difference. It’s the difference between being a slave to the law, doomed to fail to meet its perfect standards and being an adopted son in God’s family, free to obey the law by the power of God’s Holy Spirit.
Bubba: I believe I have, in the post immediately preceding this one.
It seemed to me that you didn’t actually explained what you believed, you only explained why you were offering no explanations:
Bubba: “you don’t even try to communicate what you believe.” Astute observation, that. Here’s why: One thing I believe is that what people believe is waaaay down the list of definitions of “Christian” — beyond the experience of the person of Jesus in one’s life, and reliance (faith, trust, etc.) in Jesus for one’s life. It’s the tacking on of stuff beyond that that I take shots at.
You offered one thing you believe in to explain why you both refuse to communicate the rest of what you believe and why you “take shots at” the beliefs of everyone else.
You explained why you refuse to answer my question; it dishonest to present this refusal as a substitute for a real answer.
How can you see the rest of us from yer high horse, Bubba?
And are you being dishonest when you pretend you can read?
“One thing I believe is that what people believe is waaaay down the list of definitions of “Christian” — beyond the experience of the person of Jesus in one’s life, and reliance (faith, trust, etc.) in Jesus for one’s life.”
It IS a little convoluted, but for one who claims to be able to decipher the utter truth from the convolutions of the Bible, I’d think it pretty wasy to see. But, sigh, I’ll make it easy for ya.
Uno. I am a Christian.
Two-o. This is the only definition of “Christian” that matters: “the experience of the person of Jesus in one’s life, and reliance (faith, trust, etc.) in Jesus for one’s life.”
We used to say that some people see a demon under every doily. You see a foe behind every disagreement.
BTW, I retract the following, a lingering product of my former way of thinking about the Bible:
—
Re, “A sincere seeker with an open mind could never misinterpret the Bible as have the militant Islamists with the Q’uran.”
Crusades. American slavery. Patriarchy-Misogyny. “Civilizing” the Indians. … (fundamentalism itself, he muttered …)
Sorry! BZZZZ! Next contestant! Thanks for playing!
—
Above, I called it misinterpretation of Scripture when Christian used Scripture to justify the Crusades, American slavery, patriarchy-misogyny, and “civilizing” the Indians. It was NOT misinterpretaion. Justification for each is easy to find with a plain reading of the Bible. But it was still wrong. Which is why it’s important to take the Bible seriously but not literally.
Fundamentalism, on the other hand, I maintain is based on misinterpretation — or, rather, the lack of interpretation.
Neil said: ER, you should quit when you are (sort of) ahead. Nothing personal, but I am always tempted to block liberal Christians when debating atheists. You guys make the problems unnecessarily hard. To say that a plain reading of the NT supports the Crusades, for example, is silly.
No, quite honestly, ER, justification for each is NOT easy to find with a plain reading of the Bible. Under those criteria, justification to go around pulling out our eyes is easily found as well. And the very word Fundamentalism, the most misused word in the English language, means that which adheres to what is fundamental, fundamental being basic.
You, sir, are the worst kind of “Christian.” You have admitted yourself that you barely care what the Bible says, and you have made it quite obvious that you are perfectly willing to use the parts of the Bible you like and ignore the parts you are not comfortable with. Quite frankly, you strike me as very similar to the Pharisees of Jesus’ day, thoug slightly in reverse, as they were overly legalistic, and you are overly licentious. So consumed with the parts that make you look good, and so willing to overlook the parts that you don’t agree with. If we all followed your idea of Christianity, ER, we would be in a sad fix.
ER, you’ve attacked the character of pretty much everyone here, saying that you would bet that none of us pray for those who disagree with us, and that you would bet that many of us don’t even go to church. You then attacked all of orthodoxy as the “broad way” that leads to destruction; in your arrogance you presumed to do so “in the very name” of Christ.
It is now somehow my fault that I read some antagonism in your position?
You recently quoted Tozer’s remark, “I don’t believe in anything that is unscriptural or that is anti-scripture,” but now you think that a plain reading of the Bible leads to all sorts of atrocities. Heck, most of Jesus’ teachings and most of the epistles touched on correcting some doctrinal error or another, but you have the audacity to suggest, simultaneously, that doctrine is extremely unimportant (and indeed those who disagree should be ridiculed) while the Bible should be taken seriously.
I suppose I was out of bounds to ask you to clarify what it is you believe?
With stuff like this — “You, sir, are the worst kind of “Christian” (air quotes even!) — who needs atheists to tear down the Body of Christ?
I was reading in one of the pastoral epistles the last couple of evenings. I honestly can’t remember — oh, hey, hang on, I’ll look … 1 Timothy 2: 11-14.
Now, I believe that either Paul or one of his close followers wrote that. I believe that such an admonition might have been best for believers in that time and place. But I do not believe it should be accepted today as if it were written for us now.
So tell me: Do I believe the Bible or not? I say I do.
Oh, W&F, re: “Under those criteria, justification to go around pulling out our eyes is easily found as well.”
Yes, it is. That’s my point. You apparently “pick and choose” not to do that. Thank God.
Perhaps if we looked at one specific example of how the Bible has been interpreted differently- the issue of slavery. If you ever want an interesting read go to the local college library and look up “slavery, debates, U.S. History.” You will finds lots of interesting stuff from pro-slavery advocates who argued strongly for the curse of Ham/Canaan, those who were indifferent, and those who unequivocally stated that the Bible condemned slavery.
Yet if you peruse their reasoning you find several interesting issues the emerge. Pro-slavery advocates often took the God’s acceptance of slavery within theocratic Israel as proof that God supported slavery. Oddly enough, none of these same critics saw God’s acceptance of polygamy as an endorsement- but I digress. I think we could agree that this is a clear example of convenient rationalization on the part of pro-slavery advocates. After all these were specific laws, given by God for the people of Israel. Moreover, and as abolitionists frequently retorted, these laws came with limitations like the Jubilee celebration- none of which existed in the U.S. South.
The other common pro-slavery argument rested upon Paul’s instructions to slaves to obey their earthly masters. Yet, if one is not seeking to rationalize slave holding, wouldn’t it be more reasonable to see this as an example of a Christian living a witness even under an immoral master/spouse, etc? After all, Paul’s admonition to wives to obey their non-believing husbands doesn’t represent Paul’s suggestion that it is a good idea to marry a non-believer.
On the other hand abolitionists were quick to point to (as previously referenced) the specific context of God’s laws that authorized slavery in Israel, as well as the unchristian passions which slavery elicited in the souls of men. For the slave owner possessed (or at least tried to exercise) God like power over his human chattel.
I think there is a strong rule of Biblical interpretation that makes a lot of sense. That rule being, “If your interpretation of scripture makes your life easier/more convenient, and validates your own actions, you should probably think again.”
TO BE CONCLUDED LATER… (phone call)
With stuff like this — “You, sir, are the worst kind of “Christian” (air quotes even!) — who needs atheists to tear down the Body of Christ?
ER, let me remind you that you wrote this:
“Orthodix” is the broasd way! Not thinkiing, but only “accepting” and repeating is the broad way! Judging everyone who doesn’t line right up behind you is the broad way! Topped myself? I have not yet begun. The church in this country is spiritually bankrupt, all right, because of peoiple who cram God and Christ into boxes of their own design rather than stranding back and letting God work God’s wonders in trhe hearts of believers — AND agnostics, AND skeptics, AND everyuone one else in the world that you and the rest of the “orthodox”” faith wants to condemn or dismiss.
I said it. I believe it. I stand by it, in the very name of the Risen Christ, about whom “the Bible” is just the introductioon, NOT the definition.
Thanlk God for you and this blog, for helping show me the most needy mission field.: Peop,le so close to Christian liberty they canmot stand to stay the hell out of its way.
You’re in no position to whine about what washedandforgiven wrote.
As to the passage from First Timothy, ER, that’s a side argument, a rabbit trail that we could easily get into, but I honestly think it probably applies today a little bit more than what you’d be willing to admit.
Chew on these references for a little while, ER. But then again, you probably wouldn’t agree with them, ’cause you don’t believe in the Bible anyways.
Take special, note, ER, of the last part of the verse from Revelation. The one testifying is Christ Himself. Now, the fact is, regardless of whether you agree with everything the Bible says or not, Christ is God the Son. You aren’t going to tell me that you disagree with God, are you?
Oh, wait, you already did.
I most certainly have niot disagreed with God. Unless you mean that by disagreeing with the Bible, I disagree with God — whch means you equate the Bible witgh God, which is idolatry by definition.
Neil said: ER, the Bible claims to speak for God (put your keyboards down, atheists, I’m not using that as a proof). Therefore, to disagree with his statements is to disagree with him. That isn’t idolotry. It is akin to disagreeing with something someone wrote, as in, “I disagree with the comment ER typed, so I disagree with ER. I didn’t say that you were your comment, just that the comment was your view.
“I think we could agree that this is a clear example of convenient rationalization on the part of pro-slavery advocates.”
Absolutely not. Southerners actually read the same Bible we do and came to the conclusion, based on what it says in the places you mention, that, in their honest, heart-felt interpretation, slaveholding was not only “OK,” but was God’s explicit will, and that slavery was GOOD for the slaves, AND the slaveholders. Nobody wants to admit that. But I have rare copies of some rare sermons and editorials that back this up. Note: I am a battle-flag displaying (in my home office) great-grandson of a Rebel soldier, and as Southern as they come. But I know what my forefather and foremother Christians did and thought, and they were wrong.
Really, y’all should be a mite embarrassed. There are actual professed atheists in the house, and y’all are slamming me, a shamelessly professed Christian, over words said in anger a few days ago, and a different perspective of what the Bible is and how it should be regarded by fellow Christians? Y’all deserve to have godless raiders at the gates. You need to be reminded of who the enemy is. It ain’t me.
Neil said: You seem to have made many judgments against others the last few days and I can’t help but notice the irony.
But if people are piling on after you’ve retracted something, then by all means they should stop. We all misspeak at times and it is only charitable to back off when someone clarifies their views or retracts comments. I’ve lost track of the threads so I’m not sure if that is the case.
Funny how “iron sharpens iron” usually only when it’s some minor thing. I admit to the irony. But I maintain that I usually do not attack people, individuals, directly, the way W&F did above — and he does, in fact, owe me an apology as personal as that attack.
Oh, and Neil (and yoohoo, all y’all “atheists” [see, I am an a-atheist: I don't believe in atheists!]), re: “the Bible claims to speak for God.” This is the HEART of our disagreement. The Bible does not claim anything. Various writers IN the Bible make claims, and people who are quoted in the Bible, including Jesus hisself, make claims, but the Bible does not. And I seriously, honestly, really would be concerened afrer the dust settled and my blood rpessure went back down to look back and see I had gotten so offended and defensive of the record of our spiritual fathers’ and mothers’ search for truth and encounters with God, as if the Bible itself were the objectg of ou worship and the source of our faith! It’s the Jesus told of in the Bible, and that we experience, daily, that is the font of Grace. Right?
Tired now. Go rassle with some “atheists.”
Saudi Arabia is intolerant precisely because they’ve suppressed traditional Muslims who have similar traditions to my Shaykh. The Al-Saud made a pact to support Muhammad Ibn Abdul-Wahab – A heretic of Islam who was condemned by his own father for his teachings!
When the Al-Saud defeated the Ottoman forces with the help in the British in WW1, they setup their own country in Arabia. The Saudis made the followers of Abdul-Wahab the official religion of ‘Saudi’ Arabia. The Wahabis even call other Muslims infidels, as well as non-Muslims. This is not the way of Islam, as traditional Muslims know.
The Wahabi scholars claim ‘authenticity’, but they are, and regularly have been easily refuted by real scholars of Islam. I disagree ‘“problems” the closer one gets to the source’. Where the source is God, and His prophets, we should get as close as possible, indeed the aim of every sincere Jew, Christian and Muslim is to know God, and be His lover and friend.
ER, if you retracted and apologized for the comments made in anger a few days ago, I’m sorry I missed it.
May I ask where I can find your apology? I’d love to see, for instance, where you apologized for the personal attack in writing that you’re willing to bet that we don’t pray for those with whom we disagree and that most of us don’t go to church.
(For that matter, you might want to steer clear of the insinuation that those who hold the Bible to be authoritative are guilty of idolatry. You’re quick to make things very personal again, just as you want to tell us we should be embarrassed for our personal criticisms.)
–
On the substance, you write that you hold “a different perspective of what the Bible is and how it should be regarded by fellow Christians.”
The problem is, it’s not clear what that perspective is. On the one hand, you say that you believe the Bible. On the other hand you imply that you disagree with the Bible.
How can these two statements be reconciled? I’ve asked for you to clarify your beliefs, and you’ve responded that you’re deliberately obfuscating because doctrine isn’t all that important.
–
And, briefly, I don’t see how a Christian can be so emphatic about the importance of the person of Jesus while simultaneously denigrating the authority of Scripture. After all, Jesus Himself affirmed its authority to the smallest penstroke.
The dichotomy between the Bible and Jesus is a false one. Jesus affirmed Scripture, and Scripture is the only reliable witness to Jesus. Logically, you can’t have One without the other; you can’t separate the Living Word from the written word; the former is both the author and the subject of the latter, and if you try to undercut the Bible — as you’re clearly, repeatedly doing, even as you refuse to elaborate why — you undercut any possibility in having the clearest possible picture of Christ.
Bubba, I agree that “The Messiah is the promised “anointed one” from Jewish Scripture. ” Messiah in Hebrew and Arabic means anointed one. This literally means he will be a King. The word refers to when a king is coronated, he is anointed with oil, such as King David. Beyond this, there are obvious theological differences in what is understood by Messiah, between Muslims, Christians, and Arian Christians, which I will not go into in this comment.
On the nature of God, when I said “we have no significant difference in our understanding of God, or in the importance of prayer, charity, and living a clean life.” I was referring the theological similarities between Jews and Muslims, rather than Christian doctrine.
On “Salvation comes by grace alone, through faith alone, because of Christ alone”. I’m aware this is part of Christian belief, and comes from St Paul’s teaching in Romans 3:28 “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.”
However, you may find this interesting;
“What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, ” Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself. But someone may well say, “You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.”
You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?” James 2:14-20
Also, Jesus stated “you will know them by their fruits.” Matthew (7:20)
Bubba:
The prayer remark WAS out of line, and that I apologize. It really was a cheap shot, made in anger.
This, I stand by (minus the typos):
—”
Orthodix” is the broasd way! Not thinkiing, but only “accepting” and repeating is the broad way! Judging everyone who doesn’t line right up behind you is the broad way! Topped myself? I have not yet begun. The church in this country is spiritually bankrupt, all right, because of peoiple who cram God and Christ into boxes of their own design rather than stranding back and letting God work God’s wonders in trhe hearts of believers — AND agnostics, AND skeptics, AND everyuone one else in the world that you and the rest of the “orthodox”” faith wants to condemn or dismiss.
I said it. I believe it. I stand by it, in the very name of the Risen Christ, about whom “the Bible” is just the introductioon, NOT the definition.
—
Re, “On the one hand, you say that you believe the Bible. On the other hand you imply that you disagree with the Bible. How can these two statements be reconciled?”
I honestly don’t understand what is reconcilable. I believe Paul wrote what he wrote. I believe he believed what he wrote. I believe he was inspired in what he wrote. That does not mean he was right. In fact, he was right, probably, within the culture of his time. I believe it is wrong to take all that a conclude that I must believe that Paul was right for me, or you, or our wives and mothers, today. That is not right. If that doesn’t explain how I can believe the Bible yet disagree with it, well, calf rope. Uncle. Impasse. We disagree.
Re, “And, briefly, I don’t see how a Christian can be so emphatic about the importance of the person of Jesus while simultaneously denigrating the authority of Scripture. After all, Jesus Himself affirmed its authority to the smallest penstroke.”
Uno. You don’t have to see. Two-o. I do not denigrate the authority of Scripture; I deny the blanket application of Scripture writtten to certain readers in certain times and places to this specific time and place. Three-o. Jesus, the Bible says, affirmed the authority of Scripture as it existed in His day; He did not affirm the authority of the New Testament writings, since they did not exist in His day; the only way you can claim that He did is to take the canonization process and make it all retroactive, and that is persactly what you do. And I do not accept that. Scripture has its authority because of what it is — the main records from the earliest days of our faith tradtiion, not because of what it says, per se. (A modern example: The U.S. Constitution is authorititave, even the words of the original writing, as our foundational document, even though the original document was flawed in that it permitted slavery, he denial of women and nonproperty owners to vote, and counted Indians as three-fifths of one person for tax purpposes. The Constitution has been changed by war, by amendment and by interpretation. But I cherish it and “believe in it” as our foundational document.).
Bubba, here is where you say, “I see,” and maybe, “I disagree.” You may say I am wrong. But you may not, in good faith, say I have failed to try to explain myself.
Goldarn it: “I honestly don’t understand what is UNreconcilable — un un un!
ER, you may think that is a personal attack on you, but I will remind you that Jesus had a tendency to use the word “hypocrite” in association with those who preached false doctrine in his days. Other degrading terms were also used in association with those who lead others astray. Quite frankly, I think your whining about “personal attacks” is only refusal to address the substance of what is being said about you.
W&F, this is a direct attack on me: “You, sir, are the worst kind of ‘Christian.’ ”
I will remind you that you are not Jesus.
I’ve said publically — as much as this blog is public — that you hurt me with your words about mySELF, as opposed to my thoughts. I’ve asked for an apology. I’ve been denied it.
I will give you, sir, your F, but you are not nearly W enough to wear it as a label.
Interesting that you call me out for direct attacks on your person, and then turn around and continue to do it yourself. I am not “washed” by own doing. I am “washed” by the same one that “forgave” me. To quote Scripture, which you only believe in when you feel like it, I have none of my own righteousnesses. All my righteousnesses are as filthy rags.
I do not need to be Jesus to call out false doctrine and a man who purports to speak for God, yet so blatantly and obviously, and repeatedly, ignores what God says. I only need stand on His Word.
Paul Armstrong, like every other serious Christian, intimately aware with the seeming difficulties reconciling Paul’s emphasis on faith and James’ apparent emphasis on works. But notice that James doesn’t suggest that it’s works that are important rather than faith: instead, he writes that only a certain kind of faith is worthwhile, a faith that leads to works.
Paul implies the very same thing in Romans. He writes that grace isn’t a license to continue sinning, implying that the appropriate response to God’s grace is a faith that leads to holiness.
I believe that Paul’s writings and James’ epistle are both consistent with sola fide, the principle that we are saved through faith alone. It is only that, given time, genuine faith ought to lead to good works in most circumstances.
And, indeed, Christ taught that we shall know false teachers by their fruit, but that doesn’t imply that one’s “fruit” is what saves, only that that fruit is evidence of what’s within. And it is what is within — namely, faith in God’s love and His free gift of forgiveness and the undeserving indwelling of His Spirit — that saves and sanctifies.
ER, thank you for apologizing for your attack on our prayer lives.
I see, however, that you stand by other attacks, specifically your criticism of orthodoxy. You stand by your arrogant presumption to speak “in the very name of the living Christ” to condemn the church in this country as spiritually bankrupt.
But when people criticize you, you ask, “who needs atheists to tear down the Body of Christ?”
The hypocrisy speaks for itself.
–
I appreciate your effort (finally) to elaborate on what you believe, but I still don’t find it to be a wholly coherent position.
First, when most Christians say that we believe the Bible, we don’t simply mean that we believe the stated authors wrote what they wrote, believed what they wrote, and believed that what they wrote was right.
When we say we believe the Bible, we mean that we believe it really is right. We affirm its authority. It’s hard for me to believe that you don’t grasp this point; if you do, it’s not entirely honest to say that you believe the Bible when what you mean by that is much, much less than what most Christians mean by that.
And, you do indeed denigrate the authority of the Bible.
You write that you “deny the blanket application of Scripture writtten to certain readers in certain times and places to this specific time and place.”
That denies the universal authority of the Bible; the least you could do is be honest about this.
Indeed, only the Old Testament canon was complete when Christ affirmed Scripture, but I doubt that means that, while you’re selective in affirming what Paul wrote, you’re not selective in what Moses, David, or Isaiah wrote. The fact remains, the Bible is clear about its complete authority. I still do not see how you can say you uphold Christ while only weakly affirming parts of the Bible, as there really is no dichotomy between the Incarnation and God’s written revelation.
You compare the Bible and the Constitution, but that comparison falls apart because the Constitution makes no claims to be divinely authored. The Bible does.
Now, if you disagree with the Bible’s only claims that, for instance, all Scripture is God-breathed, then you must believe that the Bible’s human authors were megalomaniacal liars who either believed or at least tried to make others believe that their humble records of what they taught were authoritative revelations of the divine.
Or, if you agree with the claim that all Scripture is God-breathed but still disagree with parts of Scripture, you’re taking the position — contrary to Job and other parts of the Old Testament, which Jesus affirmed fully — that man has the right to disagree with God Himself. Whether such a man is truly mature in his relationship with Christ I will leave as an open question.
Finally, you write:
Scripture has its authority because of what it is — the main records from the earliest days of our faith tradtiion, not because of what it says, per se.
Let me concede the point, at least for the sake of this argument. Let’s suppose Scripture’s authority derives solely from its history and not its content: that still doesn’t undercut the authority of that content.
Regardless of the reason for its authority, if Scripture is authoritative, “what it says” is likewise authoritative.
I will ask you what I asked another Christian whose theological positions struck me as very confused: if the Bible isn’t wholly authoritative, what standard do you use to determine what is authoritative and what isn’t?
The question brings us back to what Neil highlighted as “Dalmation Theology”: the idea that the Bible is only authoritative in spots and that you are (somehow) qualified to pick out those spots.
In the absence of a reasonable standard, that approach carries an extraordinary risk that a person will edit the Bible by his own whims. It’s not idolatry to believe that God can and has clearly communicated in a wholly authoritative written revelation; but to believe that you personally are qualified to be the final arbiter of what belongs in that revelation, that is incredibly close to idolatry.
Whatever, W&F. I attack positions, and ideas, and when I in anger attack someone directly and personally, I usually apologize later. You, perhaps in anger, attacked me directly and personally, and now, you coolly stand by it. Great. I know what kind of individual person I’m dealing with.
Bubba. I tire of your circless, and so I retire from them. Nothing is wholly coherent in this creation. No thing. Especially not me.
Now, re: “You need to be reminded of who the enemy is. It ain’t me.” My own words, and I want to retract not the words, but the assumption. My remark assumed that one would be more justified in fighting and berating and insulting one’s enemies, and that is unJesusy. Atheists, if they are the enemy of the Church, are to be loved even more than the friends of the Church. Look it up.
ER, the fact that — like all of us — you’re not wholly coherent is not an excuse to avoid correcting what you can.
On the subject, you write this:
I attack positions, and ideas, and when I in anger attack someone directly and personally, I usually apologize later. You, perhaps in anger, attacked me directly and personally, and now, you coolly stand by it. Great. I know what kind of individual person I’m dealing with.
You’ve reiterated that you stand by your arrogant presumption to proclaim, in the name of Christ, that the church in this country is spiritually bankrupt.
You didn’t attack ideas or positions, you attacked people: the church and those in it.
And you coolly stand by it.
Uno. You can’t tell the difference in an institution and the people who make up an institutution? BZZZZ. Thanks for playing.
Here. Take your hands and fold the fingers together, sort of intertwined. Now, bend them out and wiggle your fingers as you repaeat: This is the Church, this is the steeple; open it up and see all the people!”
Two-o. As a member of the institution that is the Church, I have the right, actually the obligation, to point up what I think are its failures. It takes no arrogance. It’s called Christian liberty. The funny thing is lots and lots and lots of people think the Church in America is spiritually bankrupt — most of them for reasons totally different than mine. Do you think they’re arrogant too, otr it because you find my positions offensive?
I DO have to get to work now.
Oh, but I actually, truly do believe that orthodoxy in modern Christianity is the broad way. I have to develop the idea, but 1., Jesus attacked the religious establishment of His day becaus they had totally gotten the cart of the law before the horse of God’s love. 2. Conservative-fundmentalists, in my opinion, have totally got the cart of the Bible ahead of the horse of the message of God’s love and Grace in it. And 3., the mounds of doctrine espoused by most churches, even those who claim they are creedless, amounts to the same kind of adding on that the Pharisees did with their 600-some-odd smothering rules of behavior, which was one of rhe main things jesus railed against. 4. Jesus, when he talked of the narrow and broad ways, was speaking to members of his own faith tradition, Jews, so I think that the right way to see the meaning of the metaphor today is within the Christian tradition rather than the narrow way being Christian and the broad way being something else.
OK, I REALLY REALLY am going ro work now!
Again: W&F criticized one person, ER, and ER says he’s tearing down the body of Christ — not merely a single member within that body, but the body itself. But ER criticizes the actual body, an he defends that criticism as his Christian right and duty.
He criticizes the church, specifically, for putting “the cart of the Bible ahead of the horse of the message of God’s love and Grace in it.” But in making this criticism he appeals to Jesus’ metaphor of the broad path and the narrow way, a metaphor that we have only because, um, it appears in the Bible. ER wants to invoke the Bible as authoritative whenever it pleases him: in this case, he wants to invoke the Bible in his criticism that the church cares too much about the Bible.
It’s one thing to admit that none of us is perfectly consistent. It’s another thing altogether to wallow in incoherence.
From http://www.biblegateway.com, NKJ version:
Matthew 7
Do Not Judge
1 “Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. 3 And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye’; and look, a plank is in your own eye? 5 Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
6 “Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces.
Keep Asking, Seeking, Knocking
7 “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. 9 Or what man is there among you who, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will he give him a serpent? 11 If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask Him! 12 Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.
The Narrow Way
13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 Because[a] narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.
You Will Know Them by Their Fruits
15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.
I Never Knew You
21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’
Build on the Rock
24 “Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: 25 and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock.
26 “But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand: 27 and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall.”
28 And so it was, when Jesus had ended these sayings, that the people were astonished at His teaching, 29 for He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.”
It is interesting that Jesus is talking about judging, and discerning without hypocrisy here, as well as saying that being a disciple of Christ was going to be hard. It is also a warning about false prophets leading the body astray. Not about how we need to tear apart the body of Christ, as is suggested above.
There are things within the church that need to be reformed. There are false teachings and teachers rampant out there. So, we need a standard to judge, as we are called to do, what they are saying. That standard is the Bible. We must use the whole of Scripture to discern the truth, being careful not to pick and twist just one verse to fit our whims. We must be like the Bereans in Acts.
ER,
I’m saying this out of respect and concern, not to tear you up or ridicule you. I’ve checked out a lot of what you have been saying, even the verses you quote. A lot of what you write, doesn’t pan out with Scripture. I’ve written a lot of posts that I have not submitted on them thinking that I was not the person to confront you on this. I wondered about my own heart and the attitude that the articles were written in. The unscripturalness of some of your responses is a huge problem, and what a lot of us are reacting to. Why? Because the Bible is our standard in which we judge doctrine. We have to be diligent and very careful. So much depends upon it.
I understand what you’re saying about some denominations being more caught up in the rules of the faith and often do not show grace. I see that in my own denomination from time to time. However, that is sinful people (total depravity), not the doctrine they claim to believe. That abounds in grace, when you read what it is we believe.
I think by accident you’re trying to reform the Bible, not the people who claim to believe it. It’s the people that are the problem, especially if you are seeing them act as Pharisees. The reason God gave all of the rules and regulations in Bible is for us to see how we can fulfill none of them perfectly that we need a Savior. The Pharisees came up with a list of other regulations that are not in the Bible, to add to them. It made them powerful. It made them hypocrites. They, rather than seeing their need of a Savior because they sinned, they became gods of their own making, and false teachers. Perhaps that’s what Christ was speaking about in Matthew 7.
So, if you see the lack of grace abounding in our denominations, work on that; attack that. How? By showing grace yourself, a fruit of the Spirit. By taking us back to Scripture (because that’s where Christ reveals Himself to us), as the Bereans. By praying that the Holy Spirit softens our hearts and fills us with His grace, so that it’s fruit spills out of us. Pray that His words are written in our hearts and that we yearn to be in and live out His (Biblical) word. Just as important, pray the same prayer for yourself.
Bubba, dude, you ‘ve done made this up out of whole cloth: “ER says he’s tearing down the body of Christ — not merely a single member within that body, but the body itself. ”
Re, “He criticizes the church, specifically, for …” Actually, I think I criticized conservative-fundamentalists, not “the church,” for putting carts before horses. If not, I meant to, because not all of the church does that.
Elisa: I appreciate your concern. I hope you understand that total depravity is an idea that not all Christians accept. Also, I’d suggest that you not think of discussing things with me a “confronting,” or it will become a conrontation rather than a discussion.
Oh, re; “ER wants to invoke the Bible as authoritative whenever it pleases him: in this case, he wants to invoke the Bible in his criticism that the church cares too much about the Bible.”
No, the Bible is authoritative because of what it is. That does not mean that all of its writings apply to me, or you, NOW. This is not a complicated thing to saym unless you really don’t understand plain English words. If you want to say I’m wrong, well, fine. But your accusations are fair only if you ignore the gist of what I’m saying, and don’t get hung up on individual words out of contect — which, huh, is a fair discription, I think, of our different approaches to the authority of the Bible.
BTW, here are some handy definitions for “authoritative,” and it’s what I have in mind when I use the term:
having authority or ascendancy or influence; “an important official”; “the captain’s authoritative manner”
of recognized authority or excellence; “the definitive work on Greece”; “classical methods of navigation”
sanctioned by established authority; “an authoritative communique”; “the authorized biography”
NONE of which means inerrant, infallible, unquestionable, and that one has to agree with it. So, say what you mean when you say “authoritative,” because “authoritative” is not it, apparently.
God said it’s His Word, ER. Doesn’t that make it infallible?
“It” what? I assume you mean the Bible.
If God said the Bible is His Word and said that it was infallible, yes, that would make it infallible.
So you’re saying that God’s Word is fallible?
Wow. Ya coulda left it alone, and we coulda both walked away with more potential for misunderstanding. Sigh.
I’m saying this:
God’s Word is one thing. The Bible is another. God’s Word can be found IN the Bible, with prayer and meditation and discernment — and it’s Jesus Christ: Sophia-Logos, the Word of God.
God’s Word, then, is God — Jesus, as we believe, and as such is infallible.
All of which can be found in the not-infallible but sufficient-unto-salvation Bible, with prayer and meditation and discernment.
But one also can be introduced to Jesus by the spoken word of man called by God, which was the case in my own experience. I was 8. I’d never read a lick of the Bible. My relationship with God through Christ matured as I read, and got the gist of, the Gospel message, as found in the Bible — and as preached by the Baptist preachers of my childhood and youth — and no one ever mentioned “infallibility” — only that Scripture was sufficient unto salvation, at least until the fundamentalists start having undue infuence over individual Southern Baptist congregations, which is when the veneration all of us had for the Bible grew too close to idolatry for a lot of us, including me.
Heh. Sorry. “So you’re saying that God’s Word is fallible”? In a word: No.
I do appreciate the chance to exercise my mind and heart here, by the way, and I really am sorry for when I let myself get out of hand.
Neil said: Cool. No problem.
Grrrr; I mean withOUT more potential for misunderstanding.
Hey, ER,
I’ll back off now.
(at least until the next thread) My apologies for you being hurt about my statements, however, I stand by the essence of what I said. I don’t know if you are the worst kind of “Christian,” and, honestly, it’s not my place to judge. However, I can’t apologize for attacking your stances, and the man behind them sometimes gets in the line of fire. Whether that was right or not to attack your person, I am not sure, but I will defend the authority of Scripture in all circumstances.
And don’t think this means you get any free passes in the future. *glares*
LOL. Accepted. *extends hand*.
*shakes hand*
Good Job, Guys!!!