Think

Is the Bible the word of God?

Graeme Randall concludes the Bible is fallible

I once heard a dear old Salvationist soldier say, in a discussion regarding which Bible translation is best to use, “I use the King James Version. If it was good enough for Jesus to read, it’s good enough for me.”

I think many of us have heard comments like that. It highlights an issue that seems to have plagued Christians for centuries and regularly raises its head in discussions around “Does the Bible really say…” I think the questions facing us in this regard are these: Is the Bible the Word of God? If it is, how literally can we read it? If it isn’t, what is it? I don’t intend to answer all these questions in full, just raise some of the issues.

The question of whether the Bible is God’s word is not a new one. In Genesis, we read of the temptation of Eve by the serpent who said “Did God really say…” (Genesis 3:1). Let us assume for the start of the discussion that the Bible is the divine word of God, and therefore to be obeyed in its entirety. Doctrine in most denominations would seem to support this assumption. The Salvation Army Articles of Faith state “We believe that the scriptures of the Old and New Testament were given by inspiration of God, and that they only constitute the divine rule of Christian faith and practice.” This raises a number of questions for me - chiefly, “How literally can we take it?”

There are certainly a number of things which seem “wrong” if we are to take a literal understanding. In Genesis, we have two different accounts of creation. We can say that one simply explains in more detail the other, yet that only raises more questions. They are obviously two different styles. If God only created Adam and Eve, then how did we get the other nations with which their children intermarried after the fall? By the time we get to Noah, the earth is full of nations. Where did they come from? It’s simply not physically possible for them all to have been descended from Adam and Eve in just a few generations.

Yes, genetics has confirmed that we are all related through mitochondrial DNA - but this does not mean one person; it means one small group of people (who were located somewhere in Africa). It also assumes that humanity is hundreds of thousands of years old, which means we need to accept, at least in part, the theory of evolution - otherwise the idea that we are all related falls down. In order to take such a literal account of creation, we need to start making up other stories to force the various biblical stories to fit together.

Moving on from Genesis (although we could stay there for a long time), other Biblical passages don’t make sense in light of what we know of the world, unless we take them allegorically. No one today would assume that the earth is flat, or that the universe revolves around the earth, or that epilepsy is the same as demonic possession. Very few of us consider wearing garments of blended material to be sinful or insist on maintaining the various food regulations outlined in the Old Testament, and the list goes on.

Suddenly, we find ourselves in the position of looking at the Bible and deciding which parts are to be taken literally, which parts are to be taken allegorically, and which parts are to be understood as no longer applying to us because they have “been fulfilled in Christ.” This is a very dangerous thing to do. Once we start doing that, what difference is there between Christianity and any other man-made religion? We can say that it was God-fearing men and women who made these decisions, but many of these same God-fearers were the ones who condoned the Holocaust, the witch hunts and many other atrocities throughout history.

As a result, the Bible has been used to say whatever man wants it to say. Instead of asking “Did God really say…?” we ask “Didn’t God really say…?” and so justify anything we want it to. At that point, we have arguments starting with “The Bible says ‘x’ and that’s the end of it!” And at the same time, we claim that other practices are no longer applicable because they have been fulfilled in Christ.

We do need to realise that the Bible has a historical and cultural context - one that is very different to ours today. There are difficulties in translation. How a particular phrase or word might have been understood in biblical times is very different from how it might be understood today. One particular discussion centers on the meaning of certain words in 1 Corinthians 6:9. “Arsenekoine” is translated as “homosexual,” while the previous word “Malakoi” is translated as male prostitute. However, in classic Greek literature, language and culture, these words have very different meanings.

Another example of a difference in understanding resulting from a difference in culture and history is that of marriage (or age of consent). There is strong evidence that Mary was at the oldest 14 when she gave birth to Christ, and that Joseph was probably in his mid-to-late 30’s with adult children of his own. Today, we would consider such a relationship as paedophilic. But in its historical and cultural setting, it was perfectly moral. As stated above, we are forced to make decisions as to which parts of the Bible are culturally affected, and which parts apply to us. We cannot take the Bible literally. If we do, we are forced to admit that either the Bible is wrong, and therefore the word of God can not be trusted, or it is not the word of God, and is something different.

John 1:1 says “In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God.” It goes on to say “and the word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14). The writer of Hebrews writes “For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12). Now, we can debate whether it is “Big ‘W’ word” or “Little ‘w’ word” as much as we like. But it would seem plain that the Bible is saying that Christ is “The Word of God” - “Divine Logos.” Christ came to fulfill the Old Testament - so the Old Testament looked forward to Christ. It was but a dim reflection of what is in Heaven. The New Testament is about Christ more explicitly. I would suggest that the Word of God is Christ, and that the Bible is man’s commentary on the Word of God (Christ).

This gives us a very different way of understanding the Bible, and our own faith. Only then can we fully reconcile positions such as women in church leadership, gender inclusive language, issues of sexuality within the church - the list goes on - to science, psychology and our personal understanding of our faith.

The Bible is not The Word of God; it is commentary on The Word of God. It is fallible and open to interpretation. It gives us a historical understanding of how men and women have understood God and salvation. It must continue to change and evolve. If it doesn’t, then - as all things which do not change and grow - it is dead and has no power.

Writer: Graeme Randall was commissioned in December 1996 as part of the Messengers of The Truth Session in the Australian Eastern Territory.  Later, he received an Advanced Dip. Min from the Sydney College of Divinity.  He served six years as an officer in corps appointments and in drug & alcohol rehabilitation but left officership in 2002.  He now lives in London working in finance while studying psychology at the University of East London where he worships at an inclusive Anglican Church.  Graeme enjoys reading, cooking, studying, playing with my dog and spending time with my partner.

Related posts:

Tags:

Friday, February 20th, 2009 Think

19 Comments to Is the Bible the word of God?

  1. I don’t have anything to add except to say that this is a very well written article and I think you’ve made some very good points.

    Having spent the last couple of weeks in very heavy discussion with, um, more conservative types, I can only say that you are also very brave! Thankfully, the folk around here seem to be a little more receptive (if not necessarily in agreement!) than my friends.

    2. Cameron on February 20th, 2009

  2. Dear Graeme,

    Firstly thanks for this, it’s a question that will rear its head from time to time as serious Christians consider what it means to be “People of the Book” or in other words people who live with and under the authority of scripture. I must admit that I am torn between writing yet another comment on scripture (I seem to be amassing quite a bit of text on this subject in this forum!) and the necessity of replying to such a well thought out piece of writing. You obviously are calling us to think wisely about scripture. I commend that. However I can’t agree with all that you have said, and rather will attempt to make a response that is as concise as possible (this will be hard for me!)

    I think (rightly or wrongly) that I have stumbled upon one of the cornerstones of your argument:

    ‘Suddenly, we find ourselves in the position of looking at the Bible and deciding which
    parts are to be taken literally, which parts are to be taken allegorically, and which parts
    are to be understood as no longer applying to us because they have “been fulfilled in
    Christ.” This is a very dangerous thing to do. Once we start doing that, what difference
    is there between Christianity and any other man-made religion? We can say that it was
    God-fearing men and women who made these decisions, but many of these same God-
    fearers were the ones who condoned the Holocaust, the witch hunts and many other
    atrocities throughout history.’

    So with that comment in mind I propose this: One of the problems we have had with the thinking over the last few hundred years regarding scripture is the misapplication of certain words: ‘Literally’ is one of those and so is ‘infallibility’. In short, I think we mean something quite different when we use the word ‘literally’. Also words like ‘infallibility’ and ‘inherency’, in my opinion, are extremely unhelpful as they squash the multi-layered understanding of what scripture is.

    Traditionally when we say something ‘literally’ happened, we mean it ‘REALLY’ happened, or TRULY happened. It’s concrete, real, or historical. Its FACT. But it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that even using words like ‘metaphorically’ and ‘literally’ can be confusing: ever heard anyone say ‘the phone literally didn’t stop ring all day’? Or ‘my mouth was literally on fire!’ when they don’t actually mean either or these. In short, some of these words are slippery and we have made them means things that we didn’t mean to.

    So let’s look at it like this. When we say we are trying to work out the literal meaning we are in other words trying to discover what the text ‘actually intends to say’. We’re not primarily trying to discover its historical background, or its relationship to science or whatever, but what light can be shed on the text, what the text says and even, what the writers of the text were originally intending. E.g. what did Paul intend by saying ‘we are justified by grace through faith’? That term alone has resorted in a whole wave of different interpretations, but it should never put us off from doing serious study into discovering the closest reading to Paul’s original meaning (or any biblical writer’s meaning for that matter). We are trying to be faithful to what the text says and we need to make use of all the material and resources out there in order to make sure this happens, including historical and literary tools, but also of course prayer and constant wrestling with the difficult parts of scripture.

    So as dangerous as it may be to some, it is completely appropriate to work out which parts of scripture refer to the memory of ‘historical events’, which parts are allegorical or metaphorical, which parts make use of ‘cosmic picture language’ and such. In fact NOT doing this means that we are mistreating scripture, pushing it into a flat, one-sided ‘either/or’ and not reading it with all its flavours, colours, testimonies, genres and messiness kept in. That would be a travesty.

    Yes the Word became flesh, but the authority of the one who became flesh is still in some sense mediated through our scriptures. God’s divine ‘Word’ is of course greater than than just scripture but it is certainly includes scripture within its umbrella.

    And lastly. I can’t agree with your last paragraph, partly because what I have written above and partly because I do not think that it quite captures the full flavour of why we have scripture. I do agree however, with the idea that it is open to interpretation. That is inevitable and we all need to realise interpretation is going on whenever we read. But…

    I cannot see, in line with the early Christians and Jews that scripture is simply about a historical understanding of a community’s perception of God nor is it a blueprint on how to achieve salvation. Scripture is primarily a narrative of the good Creator God of Heaven and Earth and his purposes to put the whole world to rights through the people Israel, climactically through the true Israelite Jesus of Nazareth and the people he redeems and empowers through his Spirit. By living under the authority of this Story, this narrative, letting it shape us, guide us, equip us, we thereby have the necessary equipment to get on with God’s mission of embodying new creation to a world that is in desperate need of good news. This is no easy task, and I struggle with it daily, but God willing, I will attempt to live out my part in this story for the rest of my life.

    (I’m sorry that wasn’t actually concise at all!)

    Best wishes and warm greetings,
    Craig

    3. Craig Gaudion on February 20th, 2009

  3. In his article, Graeme presents some of the challenges we encounter when we approach the Bible to understand its teaching. He concludes that the Bible is not the Word of God, but is a fallible human witness or commentary on the Word of God that is Christ. He feels that understanding the Bible in this way will lead to the reconciling of various opposing views on a number of matters.

    In response, I would have to respectfully disagree with the main aspects of his position, and would simply state my conclusion that the Bible IS the infallible Word of God, and as such is a fully reliable witness on all matters it touches upon, and of course particularly regarding the Word of God who is Christ. Obviously, to support my conclusion I have to have viable reasons, but to state them here in detail would perhaps take up too much space, and there are many widely available books which adequately rehearse the position of the Bible as the infallible Word of God.

    However, I do recognise that the people of God have held, and do hold today, various interpretations on many matters, and it is important we face this and consider why it is so. I would suggest however, that the reason for this is not the fallibility of the Bible, but our own fallibility in correctly understanding what is written.

    What we need to do is to continue feeding on the Bible as the Word of God, asking and trusting the Spirit of God to reveal to us the Father and the Son so that we might understand the will of the Triune God, and by His grace live according to His revealed will.

    In the meantime however, it is also important that we try and understand why those who believe differently to ourselves believe as they do. In attempting to understand Graeme’s reasons for believing as he does, I feel one reason may be found in his statement that he believes it is dangerous to decide which parts of the Bible are to be taken literally, allegorically, or as no longer applying to us (see paragraph 7). (I’ve only just read Craig’s response, so I apologise for any duplication here). I would suggest that it is actually very important that we make such decisions. I would see it as a vital part of the process involved in understanding any communication. If as an example I could refer to the details given about Graeme. The first sentence uses the words, ‘commissioned’, and ‘session’. Both of these words can carry a number of meanings. However, with my knowledge of Salvation Army practices, and the sentence construction itself, I can decide which of the various possible literal meanings are intended. In the 4th sentence I am told that Graeme works ‘in finance’, but I do not take this in an absolute literal fashion, but I decide to understand that he works in the finance industry.

    In understanding any communication, there are often many decisions to be made to ensure that the correct meaning is apprehended. This can at times seem to be hard work, but is nevertheless essential work.

    So, in similar fashion, when we read the Bible, as well as asking for the Spirit’s assistance we need to use all the tools at our disposal to ensure that we try to understand correctly what is being said. And if at any time we are shown that our previous understanding on any matter is incorrect, then we must be ready and willing to change.

    Thanks for stimulating thought, Graeme, and may we keep feeding on and responding to God’s Word.

    Regards.

    Bernard

    4. Bernard Martin on February 20th, 2009

  4. “No one today would assume that the earth is flat, or that the universe revolves around the earth, or that epilepsy is the same as demonic possession.”

    Where in the bible does it say the earth is flat, or that the universe revolves around the earth? Just out of curiosity..

    5. Stephanie on February 20th, 2009

  5. Graeme,

    I agree with many of your concerns, but I think there is a lot of ground to be covered between a simplistic literal approach to the Bible (which you rightly reject) and your proposed view of the Bible as commentary on God’s Word.

    You seem to assume that any mistakes or errors in the Bible mean that it is impossible for us to call it the Word of God. It’s either factually perfect or it is not the Word. Well, of course, fundamentalists would agree with you on this point. But there are other ways to look at it.

    A classic way of explaining the meaning of “Word of God” is to talk about it in threefold fashion: the Word Incarnate, the Word written, and the Word proclaimed. Obviously, Christ is the Word incarnate, as you rightly emphasize, and he is the ultimate standard of any conception of the Word. He is the clearest form of God’s self-revelation to us. The scriptures, as the Word written, have a different character. They are the Word in that they contain the prophetic and apostolic testimony concerning Christ. The scriptures are sufficient and trustworthy to lead us to faith in Christ and guide us in Christian living. This doesn’t mean the Bible is perfect in the sense that a 21st century reader expects a “true” book to be perfect; the scriptures aren’t meant as a science or history textbook (though much of the material refers to actual historical events); but they can be trusted as the standard against which we measure our understanding of God and the gospel. Then there is the Word proclaimed, which is of course the preaching of the gospel. Obviously not everything that comes out of a preacher’s mouth is the Word of God, but there is a sense in which preaching of the gospel can be said to be the Word of God, in that it points us to Christ, the incarnate Word, and can in fact be used by God to bring people to faith.

    My point in saying all this is just that we don’t need to have a “take it or leave it” approach to the Bible’s status as Word of God. If we do, we are in fact giving ground to the fundamentalists. Many people fail to recognize the fact that SA doctrine does not use the words “infallible” or “inerrant.” It only speaks of the Bible as “inspired,” and inspiration is connected with the Bible’s proper focus: Christian faith and practice. There’s a lot of breathing room there.

    I probably agree with you in a lot of ways, but I don’t think we need to go so far as to call the Bible commentary on God’s Word. It is the Word of God, but not in the way that an inerrancy advocate presumes.

    Thanks for having the courage to post your views on this. We need to talk about it more.

    Peace,

    James

    6. James on February 20th, 2009

  6. Graeme,

    Your article was very well written. I have respect for anyone who stands for what they believe, and I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion (as long as it doesn’t have a detrimental impact on the rights of others, but that point isn’t relevant for the purposes of this discussion). I respect that different people look at things in different ways. Thank you for delivering this message of thought. It is important to consider such issues and areas of interest. But I would like to take the opportunity to present my own opinion on the matter of how true the Bible is.

    When it comes to the Bible, it may be the case that not every “fact” is accurate (hence it ceases to be a fact), but certainly the Bible is full of the truths of God, of His Word. It is His love, His responsibility for us, His morality, His mission, His purity and Holiness.

    It is a delivery of these in the forms of the stories we read, and as the Bible is full of metaphors and allegories. I read occurrences that oppose historical and scientific ‘fact’ to be allegories to help deliver the message of God, and His Word. Now, however millions of years that science suggests that the earth has existed, but the Bible would count in the thousands of years. I personally read the world’s creation in a “week” as symbolic of a larger time frame, with a large portion of pre-historic events being during the “day of rest”. (this is just my personal interpretation, and it is, of course, subject to your own opinion) This breaks the week in to seven days, providing the Sabbath as a symbol of respect to God’s work of creation. Neither does the story of Adam and Eve oppose this theory of evolution (in my opinion) if we read it as a symbol of our initial disobedience.

    I do not believe (although I respect that people do) that the Bible was written to tell us every historical fact we can get our hands on, but instead has been intended as a spiritual guide, as opposed to a history textbook.

    We must remember that it was written by mortal hands in a world that differed greatly in culture, in science, in their entire understanding of the world. I feel, in spite of this, it is important to note that (I believe) the Bible was written by Divine Inspiration, but also I believe that it has been provided to us by God’s hand. For God provides to his people what is required. Graeme, I do like your point when you say:
    “As a result, the Bible has been used to say whatever man wants it to say”, as there is much authority given to the Bible by those who would use it for their own purposes (extremists will twist the Word of God for their own purposes, for it is not their agenda to spread the word of God’s love of us all), but I find that, regardless of this, there is much true and proper authority of God himself when it is used for God’s purpose, not Man’s.

    This is another extremely valid point:
    “It gives us a historical understanding of how men and women have understood God and salvation.”
    But I feel that the Bible has many prophets, many messengers of God, and it has Jesus Himself speaking through it. Now I feel that this is more than an understanding of God’s salvation. I believe that the Prophets are delivering the Word of God to us all. The Word of Jesus, however, is clearly God’s Word as it is God Himself speaking.

    I believe every word of the bible, even if I don’t read it for my history lessons!

    I found your article an enjoyable read, and gets the brain ticking.
    Keep thinking!
    May God bless you, and continue to guide your messages.

    7. Winston on February 20th, 2009

  7. I find this article to be somewhat haphazard and really doesn’t stick to the questions it presents. The conclusion answers the opening questions, but the body strays from a detailed proof towards merely dealing with issues that are controversial and mostly matters of interpretation; the topics of Genesis and homosexuality do not disprove the Bible as God’s Word, but mostly show the complexity of tackling writings from thousands of years ago.

    Having said that, I also believe that the Bible cannot rightly be called the Word of God. With proper textual criticism, it is clear that the Bible is not inerrant. That belief is mostly a product of North American fundamentalism from the last couple of centuries. The scribes who copied the manuscripts often made changes to the texts. Some changes were by mistake due to the fact that ordinary laymen were doing the copying. Some changes were intentionally made so as to reflect the beliefs of proto-orthodox Christians and to defend the faith against Gnostics, Docetists, Jews and pagans. The New Testament abounds with obvious examples of redactionary work by deutero-Paul or copyists. The fact is that the words we now have are not the same as those written by John, Paul and James and that changes have been made. So how can we know exactly what was written? My big question is this: If the Bible was meant to be God’s Word and His perfect message to humanity, couldn’t God have preserved it perfectly? If God is faultless, then shouldn’t His Word be? The logical conclusion then is, if it isn’t infallible, then it isn’t God’s Word.

    Now I am not suggesting that the original writers said something totally different than what we now have, nor am I implying some sort of conspiracy by the church as some may think. I agree with Bruce Waltke that the abundance of agreement, both within the Bible and without, shows it to be an extremely reliable record. But reliable and perfect are two different things. Having said that, nowhere in the Gospels do we see Jesus promising that our faith and the spread of it will be based on some perfect, infallible record. But rather it is based on witness - the witness of the apostles at first right up to us today. The Bible is an important document that witnesses to the foundation of our faith.

    I think that my own crisis of faith came years ago when I could not develop an appropriate response for why the Old Testament was filled with so much bloodshed (i.e. why did God order Israel to annex so many pieces of property and kill everyone while doing it?). When I placed those passages within my trusted Wesleyan Quadrilateral (Scripture, reason, tradition, & personal experience), I couldn’t make sense of it. The only answer that satisfied me then and now is that what the OT records is not a whole lot different than what we now see going on in those same lands. People then and now fight over land and kill one another in the name of God. But that just doesn’t jive with loving your neighbour. But to dismiss these passages, along with many others that caused me more questions than answers, was to reject the Bible as being a word-for-word message from God. That was hard at first. But in order to salvage what was left of my virgin faith, it was necessary.

    8. Juan on February 21st, 2009

  8. Graeme,

    I don’t mean this to be an offensive critique, but I strongly disagree with your conclusions and am giving my best defense in this response. I find your arguments to be mostly generalizations and based on shallow hermeneutics. Your concept of interpretation and meaning is also underdeveloped.

    I’ve studied Greek, textual criticism, Hebrew; I’ve translated off the Dead Sea Scrolls; I’ve studied hermeneutics, exegesis, and systematic theology. What I’ve found is that the Bible is most certainly the Word of God.

    On a very surface level, there are issues with the text. But by careful study there are perfectly rational and logical explanations for seeming inconsistencies.

    On top of this, there is a fundamental logical fallacy of calling Christ the Word of God and not scripture, since we would not know Christ without Scripture.

    In addition, the major branches of Christianity (Catholic, Eastern, and Protestant) all maintain that the Bible is God’s word (of course, some small groups within may deny it, but as a whole they maintain it). To my knowledge, no church council has ever affirmed such an understanding as you bring, in fact they either assume or affirm the opposite. And so your argument goes against the tradition.

    Finally, there are numerous passages of scripture which confirm its authority and authenticity. This, combined with a deep and proper understanding of textual criticism and hermeneutics yields us a reliable and authoritative canon.

    And lastly, two passages from Peter:

    “But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” 2 Peter 1:20-21

    “…and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.” 2 Peter 3:15-16 (thus equating Paul’s works as having the same authority as the OT…)

    Dave

    New American Standard Bible : 1995 Update. LaHabra, CA : The Lockman Foundation, 1995, S. 2 Pe 1:20-21

    New American Standard Bible : 1995 Update. LaHabra, CA : The Lockman Foundation, 1995, S. 2 Pe 3:15-16

    9. David Witthoff on February 21st, 2009

  9. Dave,

    I haven’t got the time to address all of your points, but I fail to understand this statement:

    ‘there is a fundamental logical fallacy of calling Christ the Word of God and not scripture, since we would not know Christ without Scripture.’

    Which particular fallacy are you referring to? There is a sign outside the front of our hall that says ‘The Salvation Army.’ Is it a logical fallacy to say that the sign isn’t the Army because without the sign no-one would know the Army? The Scripture points to the Word of God, but that doesn’t necessarily make it the Word of God.

    Besides, it is quite possible to know of Christ without the Scriptures. That was the experience of many in the early church, not to mention many in Palestine who saw him first hand.

    This isn’t to dismiss your statement—I’m simply questioning the argument you use to make it. I’ve studied little Greek or Hebrew, and I certainly haven’t translated off the Dead Sea Scrolls, so I could be completely missing your point.

    10. Cameron Horsburgh on February 21st, 2009

  10. Hi all,

    Thank you all for your comments. In the original draft, I did make the point that to even attempt a cursory treatment of the question would require a very major work - more like a number of books. The intention of the article was simply to get people thinking.

    There were a number of points I left out (which I considered putting in) which indicates that there are very few stories and themes in the bible which are unique to Christianity. Many of them (often with just the names and locations changed) existed in other religions for over 1500 years prior to them appearing in the Bible. Just as an example, the term ‘washed in the blood’ with the meaning we put on it in The Salvation Army, was first used a few decades before Christ by a variation of the ‘Cult of Bacchus’. Forget the holywood version of Hercules, if one were to look at some of the more ‘pure’ versions of the story (which appeared at least more than 1500 years prior to Christ), the story eerily echoes that of Christ.

    I’m not saying this to dismiss Christ or the Bible, just to say that the themes are not new, and Christianity - given its’ age etc - is just a ‘johnny-come-lately’ spiritual tradition.

    I do believe it is the more perfect tradition - which is why I hold to it, and it is where I have found Salvation and commune with my God.

    Textual criticism of any kind is fraught with danger. Any criticism that can be brought has the potential to nulify the message of Salvation from an accademic perspective. ‘But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise’ (1Corinthians 1:27). It is important to discuss these issues, so long as we realise that when it boils down to it, Salvation is a personal thing between the individual and God.

    No, the Bible is not a history book. It is the revelation of God. But to a people who believed the ‘facts’ of the Bible, God had to reveal Himself within their understanding. As such, the ‘universal truths’ that are present there, are extremely hard to discern, and perhaps even very subjective.

    Once again, thank you all for your comments. I think there is a lot more agreement among us than we realise. It lifts my Spirit that we are able to discuss these things and think about them. I realise that there aren’t any councils etc. that support what I have said (at least non spring to my cloudy mind considering I have just gotten out of bed). But it is good to think about them non-the-less.

    As Paul said ‘Work out your salvation with fear and trembling’

    I look forward to many more challenging discussions.

    Yours in Christ,

    Graeme.

    11. Graeme Randall on February 22nd, 2009

  11. “1But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them.

    6They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over weak-willed women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, 7always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth. 8Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these men oppose the truth—men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected. 9But they will not get very far because, as in the case of those men, their folly will be clear to everyone.

    10You, however, know all about my teaching, my way of life, my purpose, faith, patience, love, endurance, 11persecutions, sufferings—what kinds of things happened to me in Antioch, Iconium and Lystra, the persecutions I endured. Yet the Lord rescued me from all of them. 12In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, 13while evil men and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (2 Tim 2:1-17)

    You will see that Paul regarded both the ’scriptures’ (Old Testament) and his own teaching as that which work together to become authoratative for matters of salvation, discipline, instruction and fulfilling the will of God…he’s not simply pointing to Jesus as the Word.

    A key to avoiding deception, Paul writes, it to continue in the teaching given. I think it is somewhat arrogant to believe that each new generation should work out a different teaching to suit its era. Thats maybe not what you are saying, but its how I heard you.

    Elsewhere Paul says to Timothy: “1You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. 2And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others. 3Endure hardship with us like a good soldier of Christ Jesus.” (2 Tim 2:1-3)

    Here we have the concept that the message was actually unchanging, not only through-out the whole breadth of the Hebrew Scripture, but into the new covenant scripture. The way it was to be carried forward was simply by entrusting the same message to those reliable enought to continue the sound teaching. ‘In front of many winesses’ reminds us that not only are we hearing spiritual teaching inspired by the Holy Spirit, but its also ratified in the understanding, experiences and ‘community’ of those united by the Spirit of God. This is key to how we read scripture. We, as community, have scripture on trust. I don’t hide the fact that I feel that many of us take more liberties with it than our trust allows!

    We also must understand that “20Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. 21For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” (2 Peter 1:20 - 21)

    We all know, and have heard many times, the ‘cultural and historical argument’ for dismissing elements of scripture and we all know that its hermenutically sensible to understand the context in order to apply it appropriately, but Peter brings forward for us here a significant factor in that whilst it is the man who speaks/writes, he does so influcenced and annointed by the Holy Spirit. This means that as God looked down the line of history, he had the likes of you and me in mind when he inspired this partial revelation of himself in the word and full revelation of himself in his Word.

    When it comes to the bible, we have infallable material in the original languages with a good breadth of wisdom and knowledge built into our myriad of translations to help us apply biblical truth. We neglect it or reduce it to a rough guide at our peril.

    ‘Here I stand, I can do no other.’ - Martin Luther, restated and owned for today, by Andrew Clark

    12. Andrew Clark on February 22nd, 2009

  12. In reading down through the responses here, there are a few points I would like to add to the discussion:

    1. Graeme, you’re right that the Bible is not a history book. If it is, it probably fails in that regard. There is history in it, as well as poetry, personal correspondence, etc. More than anything it is a collection of writings that preserve and detail the early origins of Judaism and Christianity and its relative teachings. It is written by many human hands and, while not perfect, is very reliable. However, I would stop short of calling it “THE” Word of God or even “THE revelation of God”. The Word of God is Christ, who is the full revelation of God. As important as the Bible is to our faith, to call it the revelation or Word is to misname it with a name that is for Jesus only. We have mistakenly given way to bibliolatry. Christ is the Word and full revelation of God - the Bible simply helps us see how.

    2. I find it somewhat incestuous (forgive the word, but nothing else seems apt) when Christians defend the perfection/infallibility/utter sacredness of the Bible by quoting passages from said Bible (such as some of those above). Doesn’t that seem wrong? It’s like making some claim about myself and asking people to reference only me in determining whether or not what I’ve said is truth! The truth is in external factors as well, which is wear textual criticism comes in. And even one instance where it can be proven that the original words have been altered causes the argument for inerrancy or incorruptibility to crumble. Having said that, I fail to see even within the pages of the Bible where it backs up the claims that many Christians make about it. The most quoted 2 Timothy 3:16 simply says that the Scriptures are inspired and useful for teaching. I would say that the same applies to the works of the early church fathers, Calvin’s Institutes, and the works of the Wesley brothers. The very fact that Paul alternates from speaking for God to speaking for himself in Corinthians ought to prove that the Bible is not fully God’s Word.

    3. It is quite impossible to label any of the more liberal viewpoints presented here as being against all of the dicta of historic church councils. There is quite a variety of opinion throughout church history on the Bible. Some hold to a straightforward view of Biblical inerrancy, while others claim that only the original autographs were inerrant. As we know, there are many others who hold that the King James Bible is the only inerrant Word of God. As pointed out above, our own first doctrine seems to stop at the level of inspiration. However, by saying that the Scriptures “only constitute the divine rule of Christian faith and practice”, I think we have lined up on the inerrancy side.

    Let’s face it, it is not as if the fundamentalist viewpoint has been the norm for 2000 years. Does anyone remember why the Reformation happened? For centuries papal infallibility governed the church, not the Bible. In many ways, what Luther did was replace papal infallibility & authority with paper infallibility & authority. Scholars like CH Dodd would lean more towards these conclusions than those of a fundamentalist. I applaud Graeme for making a gutsy statement without fear of the haunts of evangelicals.

    13. Juan on February 22nd, 2009

  13. It gets more complicated, too.

    I recommend reading up on liberal theology and (especially redactive criticism - the implications of that are stunning). We already have the Documentary Hypothesis which presents a detailed probably origin for the texts of the Old Testament (on which Karen Armstrong has written a couple of good books).

    I am entirely in favour of honesty in understanding where one’s text has come from. Note, however, it is also worthwhile understanding how the nature of God has changed since the OT was written starting in 950BCE through what the Jews were discussing when they studied Torah in Jesus’ time, through how the strands of ideology have evolved. For example, a handful of centuries before Jesus the Greeks were playing with the idea of Logos, “reason/rationality personified”. After Jesus’ death, especially after the fall of Jerusalem in AD70, Christianity and Judaism went their separate ways; one strand of Christianity was the Johannine community which produced the gospel of John as we see it - totally different from the synoptics - but obviously influenced by Greek ideas such as a God that’s not so much as “who” as a concept (perfect remote unchanging transcendence). To be clear, the understanding of the nature of God has changed over time - from Greeks to philosophers to mystics to Jews to Christians to Kabbalists to Muslims and then some. The idea of relating to God as “Father” is a product of Jesus’ time and the communities in which it evolved.

    The great pity is the number of short-sighted unthinking people who’ve said “current thinking is Trinitarian. It must be right for all time. Death to all those who disagree!”.

    The Bible enshrines the story of a people forming out of the wilderness, as a tribal myth, followed with some evolving theology and Christology. As such, it does not “say” anything; it certainly does not prescribe anything; it merely describes what was going off. It is a product from within its various cultures and modern culture is not bound to live within the Bible; rather, it has much value in *how* we reinterpret the stories for our own times.

    Note that, for some values of God, it is still the Word of God - precisely because it is a thing, a product of the universe, and portrays people’s understanding of God rather than any revelation at all.

    14. Tim on March 5th, 2009

  14. See comment on this article here:

    http://de-conversion.com/2009/03/05/a-look-at-liberal-christianity/

    15. The de-Convert on March 5th, 2009

  15. I don’t think the bible says the earth is flat, etc etc. But lets give your notion some credence on that level that some stuff can only be taken allegorically. Your argument is that if some stuff must be taken allegorically, then the floodgates are opened to take it all allegorically. Then the tower crumbles.

    The trouble is, this theory is only meaningful for a tiny minority of Christians called protestants. Those in Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, Oriental Orthodoxy, Ethiopian Orthodoxy etc etc, don’t have the bible alone as the sole authority. Rather it is the bible as understood by the church’s interpretation. And these churches don’t tend to say much about how literally to take Genesis (in fact, there are a number of Church Fathers who take an allegorical approach to early Genesis). However they do take literally other sections of the bible. In other words, the floodgates you think you opened, are only opened in the Protestant world view, which is a small minority of world Christianity.

    16. Chris on March 5th, 2009

  16. To Dave, February 21:

    Thanks for your very reasonable and scholarly defense.

    The Bible as far as the Autographs go, who would dare relegate them to the level
    of errant and fallible writings? And the Lord is quite able to perfectly keep His Word dependable and accurate throughout all generations. Would I want a lesser god?

    The prophets frequently speak of the Memrah Jah coming to them, often with messages foretelling from their vista things they could not understand, both good and bad.
    I’m afraid we’ve reckoned our scholarship as greater than His.

    We’ve softened the righteousness of God by taking out what seems the bitter message. preferring to overlook it for the sweeter things. We forget that Calvary was a battleground, the passion of Christ was bitter-sweet - He who entered our depravity
    did so experientially tasting of its consequent death, and did so demonstrating through His ordeal the ugliness of our iniquities (inequities). If we could only behold the scene,
    this side of the cross as Isaiah did that side of the cross, who would believe our report?

    God is love. Yes! But what does Love love? Love loves righteousness and hates iniquity.
    Love has principles, and love is a consuming fire. The God of love has set His word above His name - He does not take lightly or give casually the things of His Word. If he is righteous (perfectly right), so is His Written Word.

    Even in the New Testament we are admonished of the terror of the Lord. Soften it if some will, it remains - His principles are immutable.

    Love was poured out at Calvary because righteousness must be satisfied. They go together. Righteousness is imputed and imparted to us, and within its strength the sweetest of love is found. We call that fruit of righteousness, holiness. And within that holy nature comes abhorrence of evil, adherence to good.

    I’m probably rambling. The gist of my thought is that the Bible is the Word of God,
    and without forcing myself to believe what is not understandable, I find the witness of the Holy Spirit assuring it veracity. He who God-breathed it is He who God-bears its
    truths throughout the ages.

    Thanks again, Dave. Maybe I’ve gone beyond your intentions.

    David

    17. David Laeger on March 10th, 2009

  17. Dave,

    You’ve written a nice response as well. You bring to mind two aspects that I’ve failed to mention and to respond to since I wrote on the 21.

    First is the autographs. Standard Protestant/Evangelical understanding is that the Autographs were infallible (but these were lost), and so, to the extent that the texts we have reflect and communicate the text of the Autographs is the extent to which they are infallible. Having studied the textual tradition myself and the variants that exist in the NT in particular, I find that NONE of the variants touch on any major theological doctrine. In addition, when it is said that there are hundreds of thousands of errors, it sounds terrible to the one who hasn’t studied it, but in fact most of these are spelling and punctuation errors or the like in one variant or another. Even more so, the reason so much effort has gone into textual criticism is because people are searching for the truth of scripture, and compared to other ancient works of literature, it is remarkable preserved, some might even say miraculously preserved. Because of this, that is, since the Greek texts that we have are a reliable reproduction of the Autographs, we can consider our English, Spanish, NA27, etc. as infallible to the extent that they reflect the text of the Autographs.

    Second, on the 21st I mentioned that Christ being the Word of God without the Bible being the Word of God is a fallacy. Now, perhaps “Fallacy” was too strong a word. My point was only that if there is no authority in the text (for authority is what we mean when we call it “The Word of God) then how can we authoritatively say that Christ is the Word of God when we know that from scripture. If you can’t trust scripture, you cannot trust the description of Christ that it gives.

    I mentioned before that without the scripture, we would not know Christ. Cameron, you say that it IS possible since the disciples knew Christ without the Bible. But this doesn’t follow. Once Christ ascended, and aside from his few appearances, there is no way to know Him aside from the scripture (understandably, prayer and experience factor in, but these are, in the overwhelming amount of cases, contingent on the understanding we get from scripture first). Has Christ returned in the flesh as in those days so that we learn about him in person? No. We have the scripture to guide us now.

    David Witthoff

    18. David Witthoff on March 10th, 2009

  18. Thanks, Dave.

    Your scholarship is much appreciated. I use, for the most part, the According to the Majority Text in Bible study/Sermon Prep, etc. I hold your views of Scripture and am thankful for your clear and faithful defense of the Word - Living and written. Please
    keep your much needed thoughts flowing.

    David

    19. David Laeger on March 11th, 2009

  19. You mentioned “The Bible is not The Word of God; it is commentary on The Word of God”

    I half agree…. here is my definition of the bible…

    The bible is not the word of God, it is the word of men, who believed they were inspired to write about God.

    As time passes as more scientific knowledge is gained, the fundamentalists are looking rather isolated, as they distance themselves from common sense and scientific fact and the rest of society.

    It is possible to believe in God and respect the scientists.

    Fundies don’t think so. They believe that Satan is using all the scientists to divert our attention away from God…. thats really getting to the point of being delusional.

    20. John Duthie on September 6th, 2009

Leave a comment

Categories


Sound and Fury