J.P. Moreland: Evangelicals are "over-committed" to the Bible

If you really believed that what people say has effect on Christian beliefs, you wouldn't spend so much time trying to convince us of your point of view.

We can discuss the finer points of Christianity like baptism or communion until the cows come home. But saying man can make a decision on going to heaven or he/she can influence another person into their decision is just plain wrong. It's a lie and I don't have the slightest problem with trying to convince people that its a lie. Where all this leads is errors upon errors, just as Moreland has ended up.

The FACT -- and Moreland's point -- is that by their actions and words, people can make Christianity look ugly.

People can make up all sorts of excuses for not coming to Christ.

Take your pick.

But saying that Christians are "over-committed" to the Bible is poor doctrine and borders on blasphemy (not heresy). Fact is we're not committed enough. If we were then there wouldn't be these notions flying around.

You have two types of people in the church, the wheat and the tares. The wheat always emulate the nature of Christ. The tares always are those who will try to tear down the church from within. There are no bad Christians. There are only bad tares and you will never improve upon them. But to say one should not be so overly committed to the word of God because of tares is simply the wrong advice.

Luke 6:48 speaks of a foundation of a house

In 1 Cor. 3:11, Jesus is called the only foundation of the Church, and yet in Eph. 2:20, the apostles are called the foundation of the Church. Similarly, in 1 Peter 2:25, Jesus is called the Shepherd of the flock, but in Acts 20:28, the apostles are called the shepherds of the flock. These verses show that there are multiple metaphors for the Church, and that words used by the inspired writers of Scripture can have various meanings. Catholics agree that God is the rock of the Church, but this does not mean He cannot confer this distinction upon Peter as well, to facilitate the unity He desires for the Church.

I also do not see the promise of infallible doctrine in Isaiah 35:8, althought the KJV and Catholic translations do speak of error:

Recall that in Matt. 18:17-18, Jesus said the Church (not Scripture) is the final authority on questions of the faith. This demands infallibility when teaching the faith. She must be prevented from teaching error in order to lead her members to the fullness of salvation. And then in Matt. 28:20, Jesus promises that He will be with the Church always. Jesus' presence in the Church assures infallible teaching on faith and morals. With Jesus present, we can never be deceived.

So there is, unfortunately, a translation difference, one translation, the NIV, removing support for Catholic infallibility from the text completely.

I profess ignorance with regard to the KJV. It is my understanding that certain books were removed from the original Canon. Perhaps that also explains the discrepancy in translation.

Similarly Isaiah 54 promises victory, but I do not see the promise of infallibility.

Matt 16:1 8b says this Church built on Peter will never see its governing structure overthrown nor will it fall into apostasy as did Israel: "I will build MY CHURCH and the Gates of Hell SHALL NOT PREVAIL AGAINST IT." By "Church" here, Jesus is referring to the governing system (forming God's people into One Body) and its function of proclaiming the truth of the Gospel in this world. For any governing Monarch or King to say his kingdom will stand and prevail means that the governing structure and the normal function of the Kingdom will never be changed or altered. Jesus our King will then always have His Prime Minister representing Him on earth presiding over His Church, which will never err from truth.

Here is an historical fact: The Roman Catholic Church, which can trace through a continuing line of single authority for 2000 years to its very beginning, is by far the oldest uninterrupted government to have ever existed on earth. That one fact alone should tell us something. That of course was the prophecy for the government placed on the shoulders of the child born and the Son to be given in Isaiah 9:6,7: "Of the increase of His Government and Peace THERE SHALL BE NO END!" This same promise is repeated by Gabriel in Luke 1:32,33. Sadly, the Reformers ignored this truth and rejected this everlasting government and the peace of the Church. Strife among Christians has been the result.

In these cases, the Catholic view seems to be that the Lord has promised us victory over any defeats whatsoever, that we will be perfect and hell prevails if there is any imperfection in doctrine.

No. Christ promised that He would remain with His Church forever and that Hell would not prevail ... period. That promise holds true today for the Catholic Church which was founded by Christ. Our Lord established One Visible. Unified and Authoritative Body not 20.000 independently governed bodies with 20.000 Popes and 20.000 different faiths as there is now in Protestantism. Scripture bears this out.

Matt 16:17-19 Authority to bind & loose on earth is given to Peter to govern a literal Body of people. This is no mere mystical or spiritual entity!
Matt 18: l5-20 "If he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man (a non-Christian!).
Heb 13:17 "Obey those who have the rule over you." The Reformers utterly rejected this Word of God!
Eph 4:3-6 "There is One Body, and One Spirit, even as ye are called into One Hope of your calling; One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism, One God and Lord of all." The word "body" itself demands a single governing authority.
I Cor 12:13 "By One Spirit are we Baptized into One Body." That One Governing authority is revealed in Mt 18:15,16.
Romans 12:5 "We being many are One Body in Christ." At best, other churches are dismembered parts of Christ's Body.
Col 3:15 "Ye are called in One Body." A run away child is still in the family, but not part of it. God wants us all living at Home!

Christ stated that the Church, not Scripture should be the final authority: “And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the Church: but if he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.” (Matthew 18:17 ) Christ did not state to refer to or consult Scripture for disputes and correction. He said to go to the Church as It is the final authority in Christianity.

And what does the church use to consider the settling of the dispute? Does the church arbitrarily make a decisio or create an opinion or do they search the scriptures to guide what God desires us to do? I would hope the church does that. Ultimately the church has to look to God’s Word to guide the discussion to make a decision with total certainty, no?

Clearly, it was Christ’s intent to provide for an orderly succession of pastors to lead the church. That’s what apostolic succession is all about: it’s the unbroken chain from Christ to the apostles to their successors through the centuries, down to the present-day bishops of the Catholic Church. It’s important to note that the church doesn’t put these men over the Bible and Tradition. As the Second Vatican Council noted, these leaders are under the authority of God’s word and are subject to it, like every other follower of Christ (see Dei Verbum , par. 10). Their job is to serve the word of God by teaching and interpreting it so that we can take it as the guide of our lives without falling into all sorts of distortions. To exemplify this, those who watched the funeral of JPII may recall when the casket came into view: a plain pine box, and on top of it, an open book of the Gospels with its pages fluttering in the breeze. This was a powerful statement about what leadership in the church is all about! Right there, atop the simple coffin, was the message: the pastors of the church are under the word of God. They are at the service of the word.

Wind blows the pages of the New Testament on the coffin containing the body of Pope John Paul II.

You're really dancing, Harley. So now you're saying that people can make all sorts of excuses for not coming to Christ -- which is certainly true -- but you still insist that Christians acting badly has no effect on how other people view Christianity.

But saying that Christians are "over-committed" to the Bible is poor doctrine and borders on blasphemy (not heresy). Fact is we're not committed enough. If we were then there wouldn't be these notions flying around.

And yet, Christians would certainly be considered "over-committed" to the Bible if they are so focused on the Book, that they forget that Jesus Christ is not a book. Jesus Himself made that point. The Pharisees were guilty of it, and so can we be.

You have two types of people in the church, the wheat and the tares. The wheat always emulate the nature of Christ. The tares always are those who will try to tear down the church from within. There are no bad Christians. There are only bad tares and you will never improve upon them.

Speaking of ugly, there you have it.... A perfect example of the attitude that turns folks off.

The wheat always emulates the nature of Christ? If that's true, then we're all tares. Except for you, perhaps -- maybe you, alone among us, are "not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector." But I am more like the tax collector.

The Gospels make an interesting contrast to your discussion of wheat and tares. Jesus ministered to those who were considered "tares" by the religious leaders of His time. He saved his venom for those who held themselves out as "wheat." And behold, some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last." (Luke 13:30)

Seriously, FRiend ... you need to step back and look at what you're saying. It's exactly the thing Moreland is talking about. You are in real danger of missing the point.

For those interested, the full paper can be found here.

You're really dancing, Harley. So now you're saying that people can make all sorts of excuses for not coming to Christ

but you still insist that Christians acting badly has no effect on how other people view Christianity.

And yet, Christians would certainly be considered "over-committed" to the Bible if they are so focused on the Book, that they forget that Jesus Christ is not a book. Jesus Himself made that point. The Pharisees were guilty of it, and so can we be.

The wheat always emulates the nature of Christ? If that's true, then we're all tares.

No the wheat don't ALWAYS emulate the nature of Christ.

Except for you, perhaps -- maybe you, alone among us, are "not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector." But I am more like the tax collector.

If you are saved by God's grace then your sins are covered, now and forever more. We are all sinners and fall far short. It's time to move on to become more like Him.

Seriously, FRiend ... you need to step back and look at what you're saying. It's exactly the thing Moreland is talking about. You are in real danger of missing the point.

For a Christian to state that people are "over-committed" to the word of God is a very sad state of affairs but typical of today's Christian. How over-committed just is a person? Do they accept homosexuality? Do they accept little white lies when there are "good" reasons? What do you think Moreland means when he states Christians are "over-committed". I have yet to meet such an over-committed Christian.

I know exactly what Moreland is saying and it's summed up in the title; the Bible isn't all that relevant.

Well, no. That's not at all what Moreland is saying. Not even close. But you do illustrate his actual point rather admirably.

Well, no. That's not at all what Moreland is saying. Not even close. But you do illustrate his actual point rather admirably.

Funny, I thought the scriptures stated, "Judge not and you will not be judged."? But, then again, I'm simply "over-committed" to the Bible.

“The Biblical account says she was caught in the act, so that wouldn’t seem to be an issue.”

If she was caught in the act, where was the man. He was to be stoned also. The fact that he wasn’t there probably means he was one of them or a compatriot, so when Jesus says those without sin, they were probably convicted for their deceit and hypocrisy.

Interesting comment ... I like that.