Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: kosta50; Dr. Eckleburg; FormerLib
Some groups who claim Christ as their Saviour have an idolatrous relationship with the Bible.

How so?

You have been very straightforward in saying that most of the history in the OT are just stories meant to teach us something and that a lot of Paul's writings are contradictory and suspect. Therefore, I understand how you don't have the same degree of respect for Scripture as we do, but how is believing that Scripture is the inspired Word of GOD idolatrous?

I have never seen Bible believing Christians in any church pray to statues of the Bible, or expect miracles by touching it's image, or pray to perceived images of it in the sky.

8,593 posted on 10/09/2007 7:32:09 AM PDT by wmfights (LUKE 9:49-50 , MARK 9:38-41)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8580 | View Replies ]


To: wmfights; kosta50

http://www.newreformation.org/heresy3.htm says that:

Bibliolatry — Bible Worship

One of the fundamental principles of Christianity is that nothing is sacred. No thing. No part of creation is God. God is separate from the creation. Creation is only to be respected (made holy) as the handiwork of our God. It is never to be worshiped. This is why western civilization holds nothing sacred. Not king, not country, not flag, not clergy. This is the basis of our freedoms. The first ammendment rights are based on this idea. This is where the founding fathers got this stuff.
Fundamentalist evangelicals violate this basic principle every time the put the printed Bible ahead of God, ahead of Christ, or ahead of the Holy Spirit. The belief in the infallability of the printed Bible may be the worst heresy to affect the church today.

On page 2 of the May 14, 1996 issue of the Western Recorder, a local Kentucky Baptist periodical, is a report of comments made by Morris Chapman, president of the SBC Executive Committee at a gathering of Baptists from across North America. Another denomination’s top executive asked him to state an “irreducible minimum for an evangelical theology.” In response, Chapman is reported as saying, “I would have to say the word of God is absolute truth and . . . Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is the Savior of the world.” This is a very “tell tale” comment. Chapman lists his commitment to inerrancy before his belief in Jesus Christ. If Chapman had been in the prison at Phillippi with Paul when the jailer cried, “What must I do to be saved?” would he have responded, “Affirm inerrancy, and believe in the Lord Jesus?”

It is frequently argued that we must hold on to inerrancy because if we permit anyone to question any part of the Bible, the whole thing is lost. We will have no solid foundation to return to for answers in matters of faith. It is argued that unless we have an indisputable source of truth to return to, Christianity will be reduced to a matter of opinion. But I always thought that Christians came to an understanding of the truth through much prayer, study, and by being informed of the Spirit. I didn’t know we could just look up the answers to all the hard questions. In fact there are numerous examples of Biblical passages which simply must be reinterpreted to apply to modern times (see examples in the section on Moral Legalism)

Of course the Bible is true. Of course it is the inspired word of God, but inerrancy is a red herring. Even if one grants inerrancy, it solves nothing. We still must rely on study and prayer, informed by the Spirit, to know the truth. Who’s interpretation of the inerrant Word should we accept. For example, there are multiple views of the position of women in the church. One interpreter, (well known author and lecturer Mardi Keyes), who believes in inerrancy, reads the gospels and sees Jesus willingness to discuss matters of theology with women (John 4:5-32), and his encouragement of women to sit and learn with the men (Luke 10:38-42), as elevating women to be equal to men. In the context of a first century middle eastern culture these and other seemingly small incidents certainly do represent a radical change in the role of women, given the view that women were mere chattel (property), which was the norm in Jesus day. Other interpreters, who also believe in inerrancy, see only the passage where Paul says women should be silent in church (1 Timothy 2:12). Who’s interpretation should we believe?

If holding to the position of inerrancy doesn’t give us firm answers to hard questions, why do denominational leaders put such great importance on it. Only this: the inerrancy message is a thinly disguised version of “you may not disagree with me.” The issue is power, control, and the right to dictate who may do what and when; to tell other Christians what they may and may not believe. This is so foreign to the message of Christ, that it should shock all true Christians.

As the old hymn says, “the Church’s one foundation is Jesus Christ her Lord.” The Bible is our primary source for knowledge about Christ, but it is not our foundation.


Kosta is absolutely correct. There are many out there that put their Bible - and their interpretation of whichever portions of it tickle their fancy today - ahead of Jesus.


8,664 posted on 10/10/2007 5:58:42 AM PDT by MarkBsnr (V. Angelus Domini nuntiavit Mariae. R. Et concepit de Spiritu Sancto.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8593 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson