Please note, there is quite a bit of misunderstanding about what I am trying to say in this post. I have written a very illustrative post to help clarify some of this. It can be found here. So if you are thinking about coming to hang me, please read the follow-up first to make sure you don’t tie the noose for nothing.
I realize that posts such as these have the potential to create quite a bit of heat and get me in a lot of trouble. As well, I don’t really want to be seen as one who is always trying to unsettle things. I like to be settled, and in a very pastoral way, I like to settle others. However, in Christianity, both for our personal faith and our public witness, we need to speak with the emphasis necessary to carry our faith truly. It is my argument that often – far too often – conservative Christians become identified with issues that, while important, do not make or break our faith. This creates extremely volatile situations (from a human perspective) as believers’ faith ends up having a foundation which consists of one of these non-foundational issues. When and if these issues are significantly challenged, our faith becomes unstable. I have seen too many people who walk away from the faith due to their trust in some non-essential issue coming unglued. That is why I write this post. Whether you agree with me or not, I hope this discussion will cause you to think deeply about what issues create the bedrock of our (and your) faith.
Here is a list of what I believe to be eight issues that do not make or break our faith:
1 . Young Earth Creationism
There are many people who spend an enormous amount of money holding seminars, building museums, and creating curricula attempting to educate people on the importance and evidence for a six-thousand (give or take) year-old earth. There is certainly nothing wrong (in my opinion) with holding to and defending such a view. The problem comes when those who hold to this view teach that to deny a literal six-day creation is to deny the Gospel (or close to it). There is simply no sustainable reason to believe that one’s interpretation about the early chapters of Genesis determines his or her status before God.
2. The authorship of the Pastoral Epistles
This is an interesting one. I suppose that the Pastoral Epistles (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus) are among the most controversial books in the Bible with respect to their authorship. For various reasons, many do not believe that Paul wrote these letters. While I do believe a sustained argument can and should be made for the inclusion of these in the canon, whether or not Paul wrote these letters does not affect the truthfulness of the Christian faith. While these letters are extremely valuable for issues of personal integrity and ecclesiology, the essence of the Christian faith remains intact without them. This goes for 2 Peter as well – by far the most contested book in the New Testament. William Barclay, author of the Daily Bible Study Series (as far as I know, still the best selling commentary set of all time), did not accept Petrine authorship of Second Peter. While I disagree (like Calvin, I believe that Peter was behind the letter, though he did not directly write it) this did not in any way disqualify Barclay from being a Christian and a committed servant of God.
3. The inerrancy of Scripture
This is a tough one. It is not tough because I have my doubts about it. It is tough because I know how important the doctrine of inerrancy is to so many of my friends and heroes of the faith. Many people believe that a denial of inerrancy (the belief that the Bible is without any errors in the original manuscripts – not the translations!) amounts to a denial of the faith. However, this is nearly impossible to defend. While I believe in and strongly defend the doctrine of inerrancy, a denial of this doctrine is not a test of one’s status before God. I might even go further and say that even if the Bible does have some historical or scientific inaccuracies, this does not mean that Christianity is false. Christianity is based on the historicity of Christ’s resurrection from the dead, not whether or not its chroniclers messed up on a detail or two. All biographers and writers of history err, but this does not mean that we discount their value or discredit their entire testimony. The classic illustration of this is the sinking of the Titanic. When we look to the historical records, we find that the eyewitnesses who survived that night were divided as to how the Titanic went down. Half said it broke in two and went down, while the other half said it went down intact. Someone is wrong. However, no historian would say that the Titanic must not have gone down at all simply because there is a discrepancy in the details.
Ironically, this is exactly what happens to many who study the Bible. Charles Darwin tells about how his faith was initially dislodged due to discrepancies in the Scriptures. Bart Ehrman goes in the same direction. But, like with the Titanic, just because one may be convinced that one author disagrees with another about some details, this does not mean that both authors are wrong or that the main events (Christ’s birth, teaching, sinless life, death on a cross, resurrection, etc.) did not happen. This is about the last thing that the historian would suppose. Therefore, while I believe in the doctrine of inerrancy, it does not make or break Christianity.
4. Whether the flood covered entire earth
This is not unlike the previous entry about Young Earth creationism. There is quite a bit of debate about the “global” flood described in Genesis 6. Some believe that the entire earth was covered with water. Others believe it was a local flood, isolated in Mesopotamia. Some even believe that the whole event did not really take place and is not meant to be taken literally. These believe that the story itself is a polemic against other gods and other flood stories, essentially saying in a parabolic way that God is in charge, not your other gods. Whichever view one takes, this does not affect Christianity. If we were somehow able to prove that a flood was or was not global, this neither adds to nor takes away from the truthfulness of Christianity.
5. The character witness of Christians
I have spoken about this before, but it is important to realize that Christianity is not dependent on the character witness of its followers. Many claim to reject Christianity because of the character of the Christians they know. Whether it is the Crusades, the Inquisition, evil Popes, or the hypocrisy of people in their local church, building a foundation of faith upon the character witness of sinners is not only a mistake, but leads to an ill-founded faith. Christianity’s truthfulness has nothing to do with how Christians act. It is about the historical event of the resurrection of Christ. Ghandi’s statement, “If it weren’t for Christians, I’d be a Christian” is simply not true. One does not become a Christian by trusting in the character of Christians; one becomes a Christian by trusting in Christ. Of course, a Christian’s witness (i.e., gaining an audience) is tied to their character, but Christ’s reality is not dependent on our witness.
6. The inspiration of Scripture
This is connected to inerrancy, but takes it a step further just for the sake of getting me in hotter water! My statement is this: the Bible does not have to be inspired for Christianity to be true. Before you jump all over me, think of it this way: Did God have to give us the Bible in order to be God? Of course not. If he never gave us any written testimony of himself, he would still be God. There was nothing that obligated God to this form of revelation (or any form at all!). Christ could have come and lived a perfect life, gained representation, died on the cross, rose from the grave, and never had it recorded in the Scriptures. How would we know about the Gospel? I don’t know. Maybe angels, maybe word of mouth, maybe direct revelation, or maybe not at all. The point is that God did not have to inspire any books in order for him to be who he is and do what he did. The Bible does not make Christianity true; the Bible simply records true Christianity through inspired words and thoughts.
7. The unity of Christianity
Many people stress quite a bit about the unity of the church. While I understand why this is important, the unity of the church is not a test to the truthfulness of the cross. There are thousands of denominations and many traditions within the Christian faith. It is important to note that all of orthodox Christianity has always been united on many things. There is a certain perspicuity (clarity) to the Scripture which has brought about this universal unity. We call this the regula fide or the canon veritas. It is simply an expression of orthodox belief, arguing that there are certain beliefs shared by all Christians, everywhere, at every point in history. There are too many things to list, but in essence we all agree on the person and work of Christ. But there are also many things that Christians disagree about. Historically, many of these things have been called the adiaphora or “things indifferent.” Many act as if this disunity in the church somehow warrants disbelief in Christ. However, like the others, the unity of the church is not the foundation of the Church. The cross and the resurrection are.
8. The theory of evolution
Unfortunately, many Christians believe that the theory of evolution is somehow an anti-Christian theory invented by Satan to destroy Christianity. Many believe that if evolution is true, Christianity is not. This is not true. While I don’t accept the theory of evolution, there is no reason that God could not have used some sort of evolutionary process to create the world. Yes, it will take some reworking of one’s interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis, but, as many good Christians have demonstrated, it is very possible to be a Christian evolutionist. Evolution is not a make or break issue for Christianity.
(I had two more that may have gotten me burned at the stake. Luckily I have run past my per-post character limit!)
I hope you understand the spirit of this post. In the end, my argument is that our focus should be on the person and work of Christ. In essence, if the resurrection of Christ happened, Christianity is true. If it did not, Christianity is not true. This is why I call myself a “resurrection apologist.” When I am defending my faith to myself and others, ninety-nine percent of the time, this is where I camp. It is not that these other issues are not important or worthy of debate and discussion. It is not as if these other issues don’t have implications. However, none of them make or break our faith. Therefore, we should adjust our thinking and our witness accordingly.
I am comforted to know that I am not really saying something too original here. Paul seems to whistle the same tune.
1 Cor. 15:1
And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
If this creates some conversation, please let the rules of this blog guide you.
214 replies to "Eight Issues that Do NOT Make or Break Christianity"
Dave Z: I think you hit an important concept: the Word of God is a living word, and as such will “defend” itself against impostors. Scripture says that God inhabits our praises, so why not the very word He breathed to us?
[…] Parchment & Pen on Eight Issues that Do Not Make or Break Christianity. […]
Michael, what I am saying is that Jesus didn’t use His own resurrection in His interaction w/ the thief on the cross. Does that imply in anyway that the resurrection of Jesus is not essential? If we are defining “essential” as the parts of Christianity that get a person to heaven, then it seems that we can trim the resurrection of Christ from that list. But I would never do that. If there is no resurrection than Christianity is broken. In the same way it seems to me that if there is no “inspired Scripture” then Christianity is broken. I know that the argument is “could Christianity exist if God had never inspired Scripture?” But the point is that He did. This is the Christianity that He gave to us and how He gave it to us?
Michael, Also, you said, ” I just don’t, in these cases, need to assume they are inspired.” But the point of my argument/ramble was that you may not need to assume it but you do assume it. You may avoid speaking in overt inspiration terms when talking to someone for whom the concept of “inspiration” is offensive, but you cannot truly stop assume what you do indeed assume to be true. And, yes, I am amazed myself at the tenacity of the text of such an ancient document. It seems to attest to the unique nature of this collection of documents (of course, w/ my presuppositions solidly in place).
(I had to separate the two comments to stay under the 1000 character limit. I am very much a recovering legalist)
This blog entry was a disappointing post to read. Wrong on so many levels and one day you will come to regret what you have written. Too many today seem to think that the Bible is parseable for essential and non-essential topics. It is as if God was rambling at times so we can excuse ourselves from the conversation. Talk of essential and non-essential is the rationalization of the man who has created a standard from which to judge the deposit of our faith in God’s general and special revelation. In short, man becomes God’s judge and assigns a grade on the two “books” God has written to us. May it never be.
Patrick
Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
Admin Staff and Faculty: The North American Reformed Seminary
http://www.tnars.net
Seminary Faculty Needed:
http://www.tnars.net/about/mentor-information/
Patrick,
Thank you and I appreciate your perspective. I am sure there are going to be a lot of thing I regret teaching when I stand before Him.
I’m curious for you to flesh this out a bit. Are you saying that there is not really gnats and camels, “weightier things of the law”, or issues of first importance? That is the first question. Second is this: do you think that God spoke with the same clarity on all issues?
I’m just curious. To the haters:
Suppose the Flood was not global. Suppose the Flood never actually happened. I guess that’d also imply either that the Bible isn’t inerrant or that the initial passages weren’t literal.
Is the logical conclusion to this really that “Therefore God never became man, Jesus never died to be a ransom for his people, he never rose again to signify the assurance of the forgiveness of sins, no one who believes on him has eternal life”?
Christ’s atonement is only as true as the Flood? Christ’s atonement is logically connected to the Flood? Atonement if and only if Flood?
Another question.
Suppose I were an unbeliever. I denied the Flood, and I denied Jesus’ work of atonement. You sit down with me one day, and after much arguing and persuasion, convince me that, actually, the Flood happened. I am now convinced, *convinced*, that the Flood happened and was global. And my position on Jesus’ work has not changed. Am I saved now?
This post by CMP is not a list of things that it’s okay to deny despite being true. It’s a list of things whose truth value does not directly impact the truth value of Christ’s atoning work on the Cross, and yet which (apparently) often get directly tied to it in our presentation of the Gospel.
Jesus will save all who turn to Him in repentance, and the actual historicity of the Flood will not hinder him from so doing.
“Then it wouldn’t be reported in a collection of books graciously given by the King of the universe as His very mind.”
I guess that would mean that collection of books wasn’t given by the King of the universe, wouldn’t it?
And so… therefore Jesus never rose from the dead? Therefore there’s no God and no sacrifice and no outpouring of the Holy Spirit? Is that the logical conclusion of the hypothetical non-occurrence of the Flood?
“Why would I believe a book that lies to me in one place about anything it says in another?”
Why would you consider the Bible to be one book? The people writing Genesis lived thousands of years earlier in a much different cultural setting than the guys who write the gospels. Pre-Temple Judaism versus Second Temple Judaism during the Hellenic era are pretty different.
If the Bible wasn’t inerrant, wasn’t inspired, the early passages of Genesis in conflict with modern archaeology weren’t true, etc., then God still exists as three divine persons, the second person still became man and took up the sin of a fallen humanity, and still rose from the dead. Those things can happen without an inerrant, inspired Bible, or without the events described in an inerrant, inspired Bible.
CMP wasn’t denying those things. If those elements of our theology proved false, the Gospel of Christianity is still true. I mean, isn’t it?
Or if the Flood never happened, then Christ is not raised?
You probably like presuppositional apologetics. So try this on, then. In presenting the Gospel, the other person will not have the same presuppositions as you. You need to counter them. You can set aside *most* Christian presuppositions and their consequences (inerrancy, etc.) and *still* prove to the unbeliever, from their own world view, that Christ is raised. This shows an error in the unbeliever’s world view and commends instead the Christian one. Does that work better for you?
Bad article. Dr. James White destroys it on his radio show.
White did not argue with the post. He just argued for each point, which, theologically speaking, I agree with him. Yet another person who did not understand the point of this article. However, this is probably not his fault (even though there is a significant number of people who did get it). But that is why I wrote the second post.
So saying that he “destroyed” this seems to only suggest that you did not quite understand what this is all about.
@Reece Let me fervently and publicly declare my love for CMP. I’m not a “hater” (such an ugly term). If anything I’m more of a “head-scratcher”.
@Demarcus Tripp I didn’t even know that James White mentioned this. I’m going to have to put it on my ipod and go for a bike ride.
@CMP – After reading your comments and followup post, I think I am in basic agreement with what you said. If you only had written your followup post, or if you had made “In evangelism, focus on the resurrection rather than peripheral issues” I think you would have gotten much more agreement from the peanut gallery (us). (But what would be the fun in that?!!) Sometimes, when witnessing, one may be forced to defend creation, inspiration, etc. but if you can get the person to put aside some of those concerns (at least temporarily) and get him to focus on the Resurrection or forgiveness of sins, etc. the Holy Spirit can use this to soften his hard heart. But I cannot agree to generally call these “Eight Issues that Do NOT Make or Break Christianity.”
@Reece “To the haters” Really? Are you going to use the language of the world against people who disagree with you? (haters, -phobes, etc.) Labeling those who disagree with you in this way is not a biblical method to discuss differences with your brothers and sisters in Christ.
A good example of the “make or break” issues explicitly mentioned in Scripture is Paul’s “I determined to know nothing else among you but Jesus Christ and Him crucified.”
“To know” means “to talk about.” One can imagine all the important but not essential issues that they, the intellectuals of the Greek culture, wanted to talk about. But Paul forced himself to set aside all else but the person and wor of Christ.
I think this is the best way to understand this passage. And yes, I suppose I did take something non-extraordinary and make it sound extraordinary. But again, this is nothing new.
I’m glad I agree with point 5, the character witness of Christians, because the judgmental, confrontational, legalistic attitude of a lot of these commenters really pisses me off.
I can listen fine, Greg. I asked two questions, hoping to understand why this post was so hard to get, as to me it’s crystal clear. You made as though you were going to answer them, but actually didn’t. So I asked again. If you don’t want to answer, then that’s fine, just don’t pretend to be addressing me.
Or if you still wanna give it a shot:
Is it the logical conclusion of the non-historicty of the Flood that Christ is not risen?
If an unbeliever came to believe in a global Flood while still denying Christ, is that person now saved?
To everyone else, “hater” is a slang term for someone who likes to give people a hard time. “Haters gonna hate”. I guess I didn’t realize how much older the other commenters were. To me it’s a humorous appellation. Sorry if it offended you.
Michael,
All Scripture is perspicuous. That does not mean there are not difficult things therein and that everyone will fully understand what they are reading, but this in no way undermines the fact that all Scripture is able to be understood.
For more on this topic I recommend:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0820470570/
“Gnats and camels” is not a reference to non-essentials and essentials, but to as you call it “weightier” matters of Scripture. To take these to mean essential and non-essential is going beyond the bounds. If something is non-essential then it is necessarily not needed and can be ignored.
All Scripture is basic, indispensible, and necessary. There are no non-essentials in what God has deposited in his general and special revelation.
Aside from the book linked above, a more accessible reference for your consideration may be read here:
http://thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/the_perspicuity_of_scripture/
Patrick
Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
Admin Staff and Faculty: The North American Reformed Seminary
http://www.tnars.net
Seminary Faculty Needed:
http://www.tnars.net/about/mentor-information/
Michael,
I consider you a man of keen intellect and when I say you will regret your words I do not mean when we all stand at the judgment seat. I believe that once you dig deeper into this topic you will see the error of this post of yours while you still walk this mortal coil.
Over the years, I have observed how your tendency for navel-gazing (self-talk) often winds up on paper for all to see and then later requires you to qualify what you have previously written.
Your enthusiasm and occasional impetuousness needs some tempering. You can begin to this tempering by having a few “old guys” in your life that you can test your thoughts against, and who will mentor you in your walk of faith.
Patrick
Mr Religion,
That is what I means. I will stand before God and have so much that I got wrong. This could be one of them.
And I do think out loud, but please know that everything I write about and forever will, will be thinking out loud. Definitely, a blog affords much more unrefinement on many areas, but you have probably noticed that this is not a typical blog.
But, if you would allow me to “temper your words” a bit on a few things:
1. Don’t you think that a message such as the one you just gave me would serve much better as a private email or something? As it stands, to me, it comes across more like an arrogant public reprimand.
2. This appeal to personal wisdom due to my youthful rashness could be true, but you have failed to take into account that the majority of the people here agree with me. This has no bearing on the truthfulness of my argument, but it basically says everyone who agrees with me can be accused of the same lack of wisdom. Not only is it impossible for you to know this, but it may, again, come across as quite insulting (you may even regret writing it!
3. How do you know I don’t have any old guys in my life who are encouraging me to write this. Say hi to Tom, John, and Brett.
4. This did not really deal with the substance of anything. It was just “I am older and smarter” therefore you should change.
5. Imagine this: What if I changed my position based on what you have said here? Think about it. I came on the blog tomorrow with a recantation saying that some commentor I don’t know, have never met, don’t even know if they are believers, told me that I would come to regret this post. Therefore, I regret it now and henceforth change my opinion. What then? Well, I am sure that you along with the mass majority of my readers would become forer readers. THAT would be volatile and rash!
Okay, Mr. R. you got me at a wrong time. I will probably regret posting this comment!
God bless my friend.
To all,
I do not think it is a matter of age, (Jesus being only 33 at the time of his ministry) but of being true to the context of scripture. True, we may not have all the details of the OT stories, but even the OT more importantly always points to the rise of the Messiah. Then why do ANE, cultural studies always seem to take precedent with some folks?
The most important thing we can look is at Christ as the Son of God and His promises. Are we going to go to go back in time to when they had to go by works alone or go forward in both grace AND truth as Christ preached, and was representative of. See John 1:14. One cannot exist without the other.
Do you really think, for example that trying to disprove OT stories is going to make you a better Christian, or evangelist for Christ for that matter? Lots of folks seem to concentrate on that unfortunately, both for defending our witness to the gospel and to the veracity of the Bible to atheists, or other doubters.
Big mistake, IMO.
Greg, go to the epistemology category on this blog. I think there are close to 100. Prolegomena and its subset in theology, epistemology, are the primary focus if this blog.
Although I have been involved in the comments on this blog for the last week or so, I have been down at home. My back went out. Anyway, while I will probably get involved in the next post, I doubt will be able to do too much more.
I don’t know Greg. There are just so many articles I have written. Over 2000!
In my course in The Theology Program we go through epistemology for five sessions. It, as I said, is my primary area of study. Unless you are living and studying on Mars, I promise we have the same definition. It is not that hard to figure out. In these courses we go through
Subjectivism
Foundationalism
Cartesianism
Relativism
Pragmatism
Perspectivism
Objectivism
We talk about rationalists and empiricists
We talk about Hume l, Kant, Pascal, and Neitzche
We talk about the cataphatic west and the apophadic east
And we have an extensive theme called the stage of truth, which is a live visual that takes only 25 min that carries us through the history of “how we know.”
Again, I’m fairly familiar with the subject. In fact, my book is simply a modernization of Turretin’s biblical epistemology. You can purchase that through our store.
Michael,
I apologize if my words came across as arrogant. My rebuke was as gentle as I could muster. The topic is a serious one and you, who hold yourself out as a teacher, have made public statements that I feel admonished from Scripture to not let pass unchallenged. I felt my response was muted given the gravity of the matter at hand.
I realize that maybe I am in the minority within the population that regularly follows your blog who have commented herein. But I am hoping you do not take such a small sampling to be a mandate, for I assure you that what you have stated is not reflective of the historical heritage of those that have come before us and upon whose shoulders we are all standing.
Michael, you took my comments about wisdom to imply a grander motive than my intent. My point was that it would be wise for someone like yourself to “check in” with those you respect that are older and wiser than yourself before making public your views on a topic that you admitted would be controversial. You argue that my comments essentially accuse those that agree with you similarly yet you miss the fact that you have held yourself out as a teacher and the standard is higher for you.
If as you say you have some senior mentors and they have all agreed with you on this topic, then I encourage you to seed your circle of mentors with more men who will not. Did you run this blog entry by them before you posted? Did you seek any guidance from your own pastor, church elders, before doing theology in the large here?
I am not asking you to change your opinion based upon my or anyone else’s call for you to do so. It is my hope and prayer that you will take what you have read here and elsewhere that your post is being called into question under serious advisement. Go back to the books, review links provided by others, search the Scriptures, and lift up prayers for guidance by the Spirit as you do so.
An unprofitable servant,
Patrick
Ask,
Thank you but I am the one who should ask for your forgiveness. I don’t know why I reacted like that.
Maybe I missed your points of correction sometime back? I don’t see where you believe I went wrong
And yes, I do have people—older people who look give me feedback. In fact, I was on the phone with my Pastor Mark Hitchcock about my these posts today. He reads my blog. There encouraged me in them. As well Dr Sam Storms is someone I discuss stuff with regularly. They are both older and very well-respected. .
Greg says:
“Reece, you and your homeys are indeed languishing under a spirit of slumber. No thanks. You’ll have to forgive my lack of desperation that you listen to me. I know the type and know better than to try.”
… the type who are right when you are wrong? That type? 😛
@Patrick (aka “Ask”)
Some of your statements to Michael make me suspect that you are unaware of the extent of his qualifications and ministry. You have written as if you think he is a rookie in the theology field instead of a well-educated veteran endorsed by some of the most respected names in American theological circles.
He is not one to toot his own horn, so I’ll do it for him, by directing you to the Credo House website (www.reclaimingthemind.org), of which this blog is a small part. There you’ll find his bio and the extensive resources he’s developed, as well as endorsements by those who are familiar with Michael’s work over the years and have affirmed it, including Chuck Swindoll, J.P Moreland, Daniel Wallace, Roger Olson, and John Frame, who has called Michael’s The Theology Program “the best he’s ever seen for laymen in this area.”
If you are aware of Michael’s work, then I’m puzzled by a statement such as the following. IMO, it just sounds disrespectful. Or perhaps you’re just unaware of the respect that Michael has earned among his peers.
Plenty of patronizing and childish comments on this thread, and for once it’s not me!
Seriously: can’t we play nice?
hello, i am a first time visitor to this blog, i have found the current post interesting, i m pretty sure i understood the point being made without the need for further explanation. I have a question arising from the discussion, why do so many commentators “assume” that a modern literalistic historical narrative “understanding” of an ANE text written in and by a culture completely different to our own is necessarily going to arrive at the truth. Inerrant doesnt mean “fits in with the culture, education and thought patterns of early 21C westerners”
As a young friend of mine said recently, contemporary english speakers need education on culture context language and original audience to help them understand Shakespeare ( theorectically written in the same language with a time separation of only 400 years). To insist on a ‘modern literalistic historical narrative’ understanding is simply ignorant and arrogant. We end up defending positions and fighting fights God doesnt ask us to!
Even coming all the way forward to the Gospels, St John the Apostle makes the point that his own gospel is only a summary, saying ( with considerable exageration) that if everything Jesus said and did was written down, the books would fill the whole world.
I meant to add that the Bible claims to be inspired by God and profitable for teaching rebuking correction and training in righteousness it doesnt claim to be a video tape of history or even of the life of Christ. It is sufficient for its purposes, to reveal some of the nature of God, the nature of our relationship with Him, and to point us to Christ.
[…] 27:30-47:50 Response to Michael Patton’s secondary issues post […]
It only takes a little twisting or a subtle turning to create a cult.
Believing that Jesus was resurrected cannot be the core issue because Mormons and other cults believe that and they cannot be considered orthodox Christians. The sole deciding factor to receiving Everlasting Life is believing and knowing that Jesus Christ is Lord/God.
I think this article does much damage to the basis of our faith. The authority of scripture..man’s word vs. God’s Word. No, a person doesn’t need to understand inerrancy, or inspiration, or 6 day 24 hr. creation, to be saved, but when they are presented with the truth of God’s Word, we must receive it as it given..else we are God’s enemies. As I believe Michael Patton has become!
Your titanic comparison falls flat for point 3. None of the witnesses words were god-breathed, as were all the words in the bible. So in reality there is only one account, or perspective, in the Bible, and that is God’s, so you would logically expect no inconsistencies.
You just lost all credibility as a ministry, Credo House.
To be saved, believe like a five year old would believe. Remember what that was like? Very, very simple.
Great post.
I am truly astounded at the article and most comments all I will say is that I will pray for you all ! Oh ye of little faith !
John 5:46,47 KJV
For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?
John 3:11,12
Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know , and testify that we have seen ; and ye receive not our witness. If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe , if I tell you of heavenly things?
If we do not believe Jesus, can we be saved, or are we only fooling ourselves? If we do not believe Moses (Genesis) can we believe Jesus? He indicated in many passages that Genesis was literal history. What are we saved from? God’s wrath. Why God’s wrath? Adam’s (man’s) sin. Judgement is coming as it had before, but this time with fire and Jesus is the door. What door is He referring to? The door of salvation (the ark). If we do not believe Genesis, or the prophets what do we base our need for salvation on?
If you do not believe in the innerrancy of the Word (and the Word became flesh), or inspiration (the Spirit will lead you in all truth) or Moses ( “for in six days…” written in stone by the finger of God) what will you be left with on judgement day? Will you say “Lord, did we not compromise to encourage more people to join the church and not offend them in your name?” What will His answer be?
John 5:44 KJV
How can ye believe , which receive honour one of another , and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?
Mike. Did you really read the prologue to John? Believe it or not, the Word in the Gospel of John is not the Bible, but it’s Jesus. To refer to the Bible as the Word of God is fine, but then to say “The Word became Flesh” and say that’s about the Bible is going entirely against what John wrote and is a horrible misuse of his words and gets you really close to a kind of Bibliolatry.
Bibliolatry= worship of the Book. Ascribing to the scriptures properties that belong only to God, then unconsciously worshiping the Bible as the WORD of God. It is primarily due to the confusion in English speaking people because Christ is the Word of God, and the Scriptures are called the word of God. It is a serious error, but very common. Most other languages do not have this problem because they are able to differentiate between the word as a person and the word as a written text.
The word Logos has been translated as “Word” in English, but it is a very poor translation. I believe “truth” is more appropriate. In the beginning was the Truth, and the Truth was face to face with God, and the Truth was God. You might want to visit my website to see more about the nature of truth. When Jesus said I Am the Truth, he was saying nothing less than that I Am God, because the natures of Truth and God are identical.
“Your word is truth” – John 17:17. In Jesus’ prayer, he uses logos, and rhema, both translated into “word(s)”. But Truth is aletheia (Strong’s 225). My point is that those who spoke Greek knew which word to use in context. There is no need to change the definitions to understand that when God breathes a word, it is always Truth. And His Word is living and eternal.
I share your zeal in knowing that God’s word is eternal Truth and that part of our reward in Heaven is to know Him!
I agree that it’s common to get confused over the term “word of God.” IN the NT, it’s usually used to refer to the message the apostles preached – the kerygma. When referring to scripture, they typically said “the writings.” Scripture as “the Word of God” is not really a usage that shows up in scripture. So, IMO, calling scripture “the word of God” is not supported scripturally. 🙂
Ben Master’s definition of bibliolatry as ascribing to scripture attributes that belong only to God is very interesting. My first thought is that’s exactly what the inerrancy position is based on; God is inerrant, and we assign that same attribute to scripture. Do we assign any of God’s other incommunicable attributes to scripture? That’s very thought-provoking. Maybe one of the best points I’ve ever heard on the topic.
We can show reverence and respect towards the written word without slipping into idolatry.
Hebrews 4:12 – For the word of God is alive 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.
God’s word to us is represented by symbols on paper, but the Living Word is he who occupies our hearts.
We can worship him and the Father who sent him.
I wonder if a truly blood bought born again Christian can be so out of touch with the Holy Spirit that they deny the “full gospel” of Jesus Christ? He is preaching a different gospel than the Gospel that Jesus would recognize. As the Apostle Paul declares in the first chapter of Galatians, “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.” Jesus’ genealogy goes all the way back through David to Adam on both sides of his family. So at what point do you break that genealogical line and what does that do to Jesus’ credibility as Lord and savior? (Bill G)
Not everyone is a “Josh McDowell” that has to have all the evidence dots connected before he believes.
No knowledge of science, genealogies ,or other historical facts are necessary besides the cross/resurrection is needed.
I think this is what is being said here.
Our ChristianFaith is not a blind faith. Christianity and faith is not based on fairy tales or superstitions.
Faith is not subjective, based on feelings or personal ideas; rather, it is substantive, based on fact and reality!
Faith is based on knowledge given by God.
Our faith is based on historical evidence, logical reasoning, the confidence in who God is, and valid testimonies.
Faith is simple but not simplistic; it is not just simple belief, because even the demons believe (James 2:19).
Faith is not blind trust, because we know the One who is leading!
Faith is still trusting what is not seen and believing our God.
It combines belief with trust; we are to believe in Christ-not just about Him.
Christian witnessing is not just sharing our spiritual journey and testimony but also having the knowledge and ability to explain how the Bible is relevant to history as well as our our physical world. Because if the Bible is not relevant or accurate about the world of biology, geology, astronomy, physics, history and archeology, then how can we trust it about spiritual things? Seeing Biblical events as reality elevates Christianity from an esoteric “faith” to actual truth. Knowing that scientific and historic facts line up with the Biblical history and events encourages Christians to continue on a mature and effective faith.
The evolution dogma is a atheistic religious world view and its philosophies and presuppositions totally undermine the biblical worldview. Many people have abanded their Christian beliefs after being indoctrinated in evolution in the secular education system. Science + evolution = science fiction. Science fiction makes for fun movies but has no place in the Biblical worldview. Although, now, our cosmos functions by natural laws, these same natural laws could never have created this cosmos to begin with. God supernaturally created our cosmos by his spoken Word over a period of six literal 24 hour days according to the Genesis account. So, to think God somehow would have used a process of evolution to bring everything into being is absurd. And there is absolutely no evidence to support that notion but just misplaced lofty intellectualism.
Bill Greenshaw,
Did you read the addendum to this article? One of the people he witnessed to used to believe in evolution.
Something I learned from the two witnessing stories that M. Patton told is that the Holy Spirit can put blinders on someone, just for a little while, to all the false things they believe in like evolution and humanism and then focus them on the cross and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. If someone is willing to focus on just those Truths for just a little while – his death, burial and resurrection – they can trust in Christ and receive the Holy Spirit. Then, after this most important decision is made, they can start tackling their false suppositions about evolution, etc. with the indwelling ministry of the Holy Spirit to help them. I think it would be a lot easier to tear down evolution, humanist philosophy, etc. as a new creature in Christ than as someone who has not trusted in Him yet.
Joli,
I do agree with you because that is basically what I experienced also in my Christian conversion. But for some, especially in America, it requires that their basic secular presuppositions be realigned to see that evolution does not govern our universe but that God and His Word are soverign. Many have become so skeptical and indoctrinated in secular humanism that they see no need for Christ or the Cross. They need to understand that it is God that is soverign in earth history when He Created everything in the beginning; He was sovereign when He created man in His image; He was soverign in earth history when He destroyed the world with the Flood; and He was soverign in earth histiory when He raised the incarnate Son from death and the grave. According to I Peter 3:15, “always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear;”