Have we gone too far with the judging?

[Grazer]

Hey Grazer, asking questions and discussing interpretation of scripture is one thing. But when one questions if God actually did what He says He did then when do you stop questioning what He says. If He lied about Jonah then we would have to question what else did He lie about. It puts in question our whole faith in the Scripture.

It depends on what God is trying to convey. Is he conveying history, science, something deeper, all 3, a combination, something else entirely? Should we disregard historical study simply because it disagrees with our interpretation of the bible? History has shown the church had no issues adapting its interpretation/theology in light of external evidence.

 

[P31Woman]

Denny Burk responds to Evan's Today Show interview. This is only a part of his response. This helps me see where she is misleading people and herself.

2. Mockery of the Bible. The Bible is not a book to be trifled with. Much less should it be used as fodder to promote false teaching before a watching world. This piece presents the Bible as hopelessly irrelevant to the modern people. It presents its Old Testament prescriptions as silliness and folly, and it transfers that scorn by way of analogy to New Testament texts as well. The tragedy of this spectacle is that the person driving this impression is supposed to be a Christian. Those who form their impressions of the Bible from this piece will not conclude that the Old Testament law is “holy and righteous and good” (Romans 7:12). On the contrary, this presentation will give scoffers grounds to continue in their scoffing.

5. Denial of the authority of scripture. At the very end of the interview, Evans says something that is very telling. She says that she tries to defer to Jesus in order to figure out which parts of the Bible “apply” today. She says that’s how she decides which parts of the Bible she’s going to practice. So if a command from scripture doesn’t help her to love God and neighbor better as Jesus commanded, then she ignores it. And she makes no distinction here between Old and New Testament commands! On this point, it’s not Jesus she’s deferring to but her own notions of what helps her to follow Jesus. Her canon within the canon allows her to subjugate the black letters of scripture to the red letters with a disastrous result—a functional overthrow of the authority of scripture.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

I think she's right to ask questions, questions should be asked, its how we learn or its how I learn. To say God did things as the bible says is a theological viewpoint and one I don't entirely agree with.

I realize that. It saddens me. Why? Because you essentially deny God is capable of doing what He Himself says He has done. Why is that important? Because if we question God's omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence, we question the very character and Being of God. You believe you can question those aspects of who He is and not essentially detract form who He is. This is not a theological issue. This is a personal issue. A God who is not greater than all cannot be a God who can save. Plain and simple.

We all have theological viewpoints and questioning yours is not the same as questioning the bible. These types of discussions have been found on since before the bible was even put together (the Arian Controversy being one example) God can express his love in an infinite number of ways.

Not if He isn't who He says He is, He can't. That is what you are doing, is making Him less than He is, which renders Him incapable of being all things, doing all things, knowing all things. If He is not able to do, be or know all things, He isn't capable of being God.

Think about that.

 

[Deborah13]

It depends on what God is trying to convey. Is he conveying history, science, something deeper, all 3, a combination, something else entirely? Should we disregard historical study simply because it disagrees with our interpretation of the bible? History has shown the church had no issues adapting its interpretation/theology in light of external evidence.

To me the point is that my evidence can be found in the Word itself. Outside evidence, say from science or archeology, etc. is fine if it agrees with the Scripture if it does not it is suspect, not God's Word. For all I know in Jonah's case God did something to Jonah's body so that the stomach acids would not hurt him, etc. I'm sure that's a story that I will be intently listening to when God explains how He did it or maybe I'll just know, because now I know in part. I'm really looking forward to that time for lots of these types of explaiations. What fun just listening to our amazing God. Listening to Abba Father as He tells us of His feats.

 

[P31Woman]

Rachel Held-Evans joins you in questioning biblical truth. She doesn't believe Jonah spent three days in the belly of a whale [he didn't -- it was a fish], saying he would have been dissolved by the whatever's stomach acids and no oxygen could have gotten to the man. This is typical of those who deny the Bible. They don't bother to consider, probably because they can't conceive of a God who is able to provide for us in any circumstance, that the things He says He did, He did. In reality.

Held-Evans, unfortunately, represents the "new Christian" where it is all right to question the inerrancy of Scripture and denigrate the word of God and thus relegate it, probably unintentionally, to second-rate fiction. We as the older generation have failed in translating His perfect providence into practical proofs that He truly is able to do anything He says He can, and that the historical events recorded in the Bible are entirely within His purview. In fact, not only that, but He did them, just as they are recorded.

It is truly sad that young people today can't grasp of that kind of power, that kind of glory, found in a God who has no need of us, but chooses to give us the desire to relate to Him so He can express His love to us in as many ways as He can possibly manifest it.

I agree with you Evans is nothing more than a wolf in sheeps clothing.

However I don't have a problem with "honest seekers/disciples" asking questions. The question we will explore Sunday Night in our preteen discipleship class is "Whose Voice do I Hear"? The lesson is about all the conflicting voices we hear and how we can discern with certainty the voice of the Holy Spirit.

Asking questions is not the problem. It's where we turn for answers to those questions. Do we turn to people who write books or do we turn the God's Word for his clear instruction. We learn about Jesus Christ in the Bible....that's where we stay for truth. People who tell us the Bible is not a trustworthy source are only fooling themselves.

As the Master instructed the young pastor . "<sup class="versenum"> </sup>and you know that from childhood you have known the sacred Scriptures,<sup class="crossreference" value='(A)'></sup> which are able to give you wisdom for salvation<sup class="crossreference" value='(B)'></sup> through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God<sup class="footnote" value='[a]'></sup><sup class="crossreference" value='(C)'></sup> and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."<sup class="crossreference" value='(D)'></sup>

 

[Deborah13]

I agree with you Evans is nothing more than a wolf in sheeps clothing.

However I don't have a problem with "honest seekers/disciples" asking questions. The question we will explore Sunday Night in our preteen discipleship class is "Whose Voice do I Hear"? The lesson is about all the conflicting voices we hear and how we can discern with certainty the voice of the Holy Spirit.

Asking questions is not the problem. It's where we turn for answers to those questions. Do we turn to people who write books or do we turn the God's Word for his clear instruction. We learn about Jesus Christ in the Bible....that's where we stay for truth. People who tell us the Bible is not a trustworthy source are only fooling themselves.

As the Master instructed the young pastor . "<sup class="versenum"></sup>and you know that from childhood you have known the sacred Scriptures,<sup class="crossreference" value='(A)'></sup> which are able to give you wisdom for salvation<sup class="crossreference" value='(B)'></sup> through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God<sup class="footnote" value='[a]'></sup><sup class="crossreference" value='(C)'></sup> and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."<sup class="crossreference" value='(D)'></sup>

I'd like to be sitting in on that class.

 

[Kaliani]

People think sanctimonious types deliberately try to make them feel less than but in my experience, they often don't even realize what others are feeling. It simply doesn't register; they are too preoccupied with their own distracting excellence.

You can compare them to a person who runs over your foot and drives off, completely oblivious to your yelp of pain because they are too busy adoring their gorgeous car.

 

[Grazer]

I happened across a very interesting verse in the scriptures and immediately thought of this thread.

Colossians 2: 8

8 See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces[a] of this world rather than on Christ./ (NIV)

8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ./ (KJV)

Absolutely agree

 

[Grazer]

In all of this I've been reminded of Galileo. He found himself up against the church because he was putting forward a view that was considered to against scripture. One of the cardinals of the time, cardinal bellarmine said;

The doctrine attributed to Copernicus that the earth moves around the sun.....is contrary to the Holy Scriptures and therefore cannot be defended or held.

On another occasion he wrote;

I say that if there was a true demonstration that the Sun is in the centre of the universe and that the Sun does not go around the Earth but the Earth goes round the Sun then it would be necessary to be careful in explaining the Scriptures that seemed contrary. We should rather have to say that we do not understand them than to say that something is false. But I do not think there is any such demonstration, since none has been shown me. To demonstrate that the appearances are saved by assuming the Sun at the centre and the earth in the heavens is not the same thing as to demonstrate that in fact the sun is in the centre and the earth in the heavens.

Galileo was absolutely adament that he was right. But he also believed that the bible was right and that it was man's interpretation that was wrong. But he kept hitting a brick wall;

Men of profound learning and devout behaviour, but who nevertheless pretend to the power of constraining others by scriptural authority to follow in a physical dispute that opinion which they think best agrees with the Bible, and then believes themselves not bound to answer the opposing reasons and experiences.

History proved Galileo to be correct and we have no issues reading the passages the church were using differently to how they did back then.

My point really is that I'm seeing virtually identical arguments here. The church took the stance "this is what it says and its come from Christ so it must be true" But external information proved their interpretation to be false. This doesn't automatically mean that similar stances are wrong but it does cause me to stop and think "if we've got it wrong in the past with this stance, what's stopping us getting it wrong now?"

2 of my favorite quotes come from Galileo;

"The Bible tells us how to go to heaven not how the heavens go"

" I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them."

Think of my stance what you will, package me into whatever shiny box you will, I'm going to keep asking questions about the bible, what it means, how to handle it, what were to do with it. Questioning is not wrong, I'm not questioning to tear down the bible but to build my faith up; its worked for me so far.

I do have one question; if the bible is simply to be taken at face value, why do I need gods help to read it?

 

[P31Woman]

In all of this I've been reminded of Galileo. He found himself up against the church because he was putting forward a view that was considered to against scripture. One of the cardinals of the time, cardinal bellarmine said;

The doctrine attributed to Copernicus that the earth moves around the sun.....is contrary to the Holy Scriptures and therefore cannot be defended or held.

On another occasion he wrote;

I say that if there was a true demonstration that the Sun is in the centre of the universe and that the Sun does not go around the Earth but the Earth goes round the Sun then it would be necessary to be careful in explaining the Scriptures that seemed contrary. We should rather have to say that we do not understand them than to say that something is false. But I do not think there is any such demonstration, since none has been shown me. To demonstrate that the appearances are saved by assuming the Sun at the centre and the earth in the heavens is not the same thing as to demonstrate that in fact the sun is in the centre and the earth in the heavens.

Galileo was absolutely adament that he was right. But he also believed that the bible was right and that it was man's interpretation that was wrong. But he kept hitting a brick wall;

Men of profound learning and devout behaviour, but who nevertheless pretend to the power of constraining others by scriptural authority to follow in a physical dispute that opinion which they think best agrees with the Bible, and then believes themselves not bound to answer the opposing reasons and experiences.

History proved Galileo to be correct and we have no issues reading the passages the church were using differently to how they did back then.

My point really is that I'm seeing virtually identical arguments here. The church took the stance "this is what it says and its come from Christ so it must be true" But external information proved their interpretation to be false. This doesn't automatically mean that similar stances are wrong but it does cause me to stop and think "if we've got it wrong in the past with this stance, what's stopping us getting it wrong now?"

2 of my favorite quotes come from Galileo;

"The Bible tells us how to go to heaven not how the heavens go"

" I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them."

Think of my stance what you will, package me into whatever shiny box you will, I'm going to keep asking questions about the bible, what it means, how to handle it, what were to do with it. Questioning is not wrong, I'm not questioning to tear down the bible but to build my faith up; its worked for me so far.

I do have one question; if the bible is simply to be taken at face value, why do I need gods help to read it?

Why not turn to scripture for that "spiritural answer"?

After all it's "your claim" the Bible teaches us spiritural truths.

While you are looking in scripture for that answer why not ask the spiritural question "how am I to view God's written revelation" the Bible?

Again a spiritural quesiton that according to you is going to be asnwered in the Bible.

 

[P31Woman]

I happened across a very interesting verse in the scriptures and immediately thought of this thread.

Colossians 2: 8

8 See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces[a] of this world rather than on Christ./ (NIV)

8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ./ (KJV)

I am going to do some more research on Evans. If I had to take a guess right now my best guess is that she does not believe one needs to know Jesus Christ to be saved.

Several questions she has asked leads me to believe that is the path she leads her victims down.

 

[Grazer]

Before you go off on one of your character assassinations that you love so much, you might want to hear her story and not a commentary on it.

 

[Grazer]

Why people are asking questions is just as important as what questions they are asking. That actually means getting to know them. I know, associating with people you don't agree with but if it was good enough for Jesus....

 

[P31Woman]

Before you go off on one of your character assassinations that you love so much, you might want to hear her story and not a commentary on it.

I don't need "her story". I examine doctrine.

 

[P31Woman]

Why people are asking questions is just as important as what questions they are asking. That actually means getting to know them. I know, associating with people you don't agree with but if it was good enough for Jesus....

I do have one question; if the bible is simply to be taken at face value, why do I need gods help to read it?

It is your claim the Bible teaches us about spiritural matters.

Have you looked to see how scripture answers the spiritural questions you ask? Such as how to view the bible? the role of the Holy Spirit?

 

[P31Woman]

From her blog, I managed to get through the doubts, but as I began to put the pieces of my Christianity back together again (with the help of theologians like NT Wright, Greg Boyd, Scot McKnight, and Clark Pinnock as well as “emerging” voices like Brian McLaren, Shane Claiborne, and Rob Bell),

Yep she is deeply into NPP and Emergent.....

If you don't know who Clark Pinnock is he was a professor at NOBTS 50 years ago. (New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary)

Dr. Russell D. Moore, ways of Pinnock,“He led the short-lived movement toward ‘open theism,’ questioning the historic church’s belief that God knows everything, including the future free decisions of his creatures,”
“He abandoned his belief that conscious faith in Christ is necessary for salvation, and began to see the Spirit at work in the other world religions. He denounced the concept of everlasting punishment as cruel and contrary to the nature of God. Unhinged from Scripture and tradition, Pinnock became the vanguard of evangelical innovation on doctrine after doctrine after doctrine

 

[Grazer]

You put a lot of esteem onto Jesus. Jesus put a lot of esteem onto scripture! He quoted scripture very much and when he sometimes refereed to "the law and the Prophets" I believe that he was referring to scriptures. Matthew 22:29 seem to lay very much value onto the scriptures.

29 Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God./ (NIV)

and how many times do we hear Jesus say "It is written" It is written, it is written. He's talking about scripture. When we put mans words above Gods, we are taking away from Jesus's teachings and from Jesus Himself. If you follow Jesus example as you say you do then you should hold the scriptures in higher esteem. Many of the worlds best lies and deceptions have very much truth in them, but throw in a couple lies to lead away from the narrow path. This is very well known by all of us and the reason that my philosophy is the scriptures themselves. If I am ever in error on Gods doctrine, it is because I have the need to study scripture more.

But he just as often used his own examples (parables) to illustrate a point. He used scripture when it was necessary and other examples when it was necessary.

 

[P31Woman]

But he just as often used his own examples (parables) to illustrate a point. He used scripture when it was necessary and other examples when it was necessary.

Are you saying the parables of Jesus are not scripture?

Are you saying a parables Evans and others make up is on par with the scriptrue?

 

[P31Woman]

HAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAA!

Y

BTW, I hope your comment/question on the bottom of page 3 is noticed.

 

[Grazer]

Details, details. The point is that Jesus held scriptures in the highest esteem. You do not. You only rarely reference them also. Why would that be?

But the details matter, Jesus did not respond to everything with scripture. That's an unavoidable fact. As for how I regard scripture, you're not in a position to comment on that, you need to get to know me a lot better than you currently do. I hold scripture in high regard which is why I ask the questions of it that I do and engage God with it who does know me.