There is No Such Thing as a “Bible-Believing” Christian

found online by Raymond

 
From John Pavlovitz:

We need to be honest here, friends: There is no such thing as a “Bible-Believing” Christian.

There are Bible-reading Christians, Bible-studying Christians, Bible-preaching Christians, and even Bible-loving Christians—but no one believes it in the way they say they believe it when they say that they are “Bible-believing”.

– More –
 

13 thoughts on “There is No Such Thing as a “Bible-Believing” Christian”

  1. While I understand and can even appreciate what Mr. Pavlovitz is saying here to a certain degree, I am intrigued by one of his offered solutions to the problem:

    “We all have to sift through it and interpret it and try to apply it as best we can given what we learn and what we experience.”

    I would humbly suggest that his solution is precisely the reason that this problem exists in the first place. If we each read the Bible and interpret it the way our life experiences, prayer, or intellect tell us is the proper interpretation, but another person reads that same passage and comes up with a completely different interpretation, how does one tell who is correct? Certainly two diametrically opposed views cannot both be correct! Truth does not contradict itself.

    It is because man, on his own authority, has usurped that right given by Jesus to his apostles to be the teaching authority of the Church he created with Peter as the rock upon which it was built. Man no longer looks to any higher authority for the correct interpretation of scripture than his own conscience. It is because of this that we now have over 30,000 Christian denominations in the world. Each has their own varying interpretation on scripture and tradition accordingly.

    For the first millennia and a half after Christ walked the earth, there was only one Christian Church with the authority to teach, interpret, and explain Christ’s teachings, Sacred Tradition, and Sacred Scripture. There is still only that same one today.

    However, Martin Luther came along in the 16th century and became the catalyst for the Protestant Reformation. While some of the issues Luther brought forth were valid and were indeed even adopted by the Catholic Church, he went even further and on his own authority violated that single teaching authority of the Church to put forth his own interpretation of Christianity, even going so far as to cause seven books to removed from the Old Testament in the newly created Protestant Bible that did not jibe with his own interpretation. From there we have come to tens of thousands of other similar “Luthers” putting their own spin on their preferred version of Christianity as they founded their own Christian churches.

    Luckily that very same Catholic Church remains two thousand years after Christ himself started it and it still speaks with the authority given to it by Christ himself regarding what we are to believe regarding the Christian faith. The Gospels tell us that Christ told His apostles, “What you bind on earth is bound in heaven.” We are not left to make it up and interpret scripture for ourselves. It is comforting to me to know that our Lord provided a way for us to know truly what He taught and believed.

  2. The Old Testament is full of contradictions.

    Thou shall not kill? Well, that depends on who you have sex with, doesn’t it?

    If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

    Whenever they do, I’ll always ask them to kindly move their heads a half an inch higher, where the same author in the same chapter of the same book says: Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. Because they have cursed their father or mother, their blood will be on their own head. If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.

    At least we have a Bible-sanctioned method for dealing with gays, Trump, and uppity teenagers, amirite?

  3. The Ten Commandments: Exodus 20:13
    …12″Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be prolonged in the land which the LORD your God gives you. 13″You shall not murder.”

    It would help you Dave if you actually studied the Bible and not just select portions taken out of context that you use to then ridicule Christianity.

    biblehub.com/exodus/20-13.htm

  4. The Ten Commandments: Exodus 20:13
    …12″Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be prolonged in the land which the LORD your God gives you. 13″You shall not murder.”

    It would help you Dave if you actually studied the Bible and not just select portions taken out of context that you use to then ridicule Christianity.

    http://www.biblehub.com/exodus/20-13.htm

    1. Hi Major.

      Burr is out, but I remembered he had posted something on this a while back. He seems to endorse your interpretation of “Thou shalt not kill” into “You shall not murder.” Here is the transcription as best I could do it quickly. I’m interested in your reaction:

      The Old Testament seems to endorse capital punishment. You don’t have to look far into Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy to find one example after another for offenses the penalty for which is death. Murder and kidnapping are pretty horrible. Acting as a false prophet in a hyper-religious age seems predictable. Homosexuality is brought up all the time by literalists. But the stoning to death of kids who wise off to their parents seems to me like taking corporal punishment way too far.

      A cursory reading of scripture does make it seem like the death penalty is pretty much okay with God. And why not? Occasionally we even sing in worship about the vengeance of God being satisfied by the blood of Jesus.

      But even by the time of Jesus, Jewish law put so many obstacles in the way, it would have been almost as hard to execute someone as it would be for a wealthy person to get to the Kingdom of God. And Jesus said a rich man getting there would be harder than squeezing a camel through the eye of a needle.

      • Death had to be imposed by 23 judges.

      • The crime had to have been witnessed by at least two people.

      • The accused had to have been warned beforehand that the penalty was death.

      • Even that was not enough. Before committing the crime, the accused had to affirmatively state to both witnesses that the penalty was understood, and that the act about to be committed would be intentional and would be done in complete understanding of the consequence.

      • A confession by the accused would not be valid as evidence. So a criminal could not just say to the 23 judges that, yeah, he knew all along about the death penalty.

      In other words, the death penalty was allowed. But authorities, as a practical matter, made it pretty much impossible.

      As a biblical scholar, do you think Burr’s analysis of history and scripture is correct?

      1. Raymond,

        You flatter me, I’m NOT a Biblical scholar. I will give you what I think of Burr’s analysis, but by no means am I a scholar.

        I believe the key to this is summed up in these few words, “But even by the time of Jesus, Jewish law”. Jewish law by the time of Jesus was no longer Biblical law, but had become man’s law.
        In reading the New Testament, I find many passages where Jesus condemns the Jewish religious leaders of His day for their liberalizing what God the Father had set forth as His law, and as Burr has correctly listed.

        Sabbath laws are a great example of this. I would refer you to http://www.christianbiblereference.org/faq_sabbath.htm
        and
        Mark 2:23-27.

        Homosexuality is often brought by those who goal is to not understand how the Bible should be lived by today, but as a means to undermine Christianity. (I refer you to Dave Dubya as a prime example). Yes the Bible condemns homosexuality as a sin, but due to the actions of Christ on the cross, it is not a sin that can not be forgivable by God, therefore I believe no longer requires the execution of the sinner. That’s God’s job.

        Honestly, do you have any examples of a Christian organization stoning a homosexual to death? This is a red herring offered by those who have no idea, when it comes to Christianity, what they are talking about.

        All disobedience of God’s law (sin) is punishable by God. He doesn’t judge on the curve. All sins carry the same punishment from God. The really GOOD news is since all humans sin and therefore deserve God’s punishment, Jesus on the cross has taken that punishment upon himself in our place.

        I think Burr’s analysis of history is correct, although I do not know where he got “stoning to death of kids who wise off to their parents”.

        BTW, how is Burr’ s recovery progressing?

        1. Burr transports several folks to worship every Sunday and runs media during contemporary service.

          Good news: I understand he was up to sending texts and email messages yesterday.
          Bad news: The messages were just to get rides for those people and get a substitute for media.

          So he’s away at least until after tomorrow.

        2. Major,

          I’m heartened to learn you feel, it is not a sin that can not be forgivable by God, therefore I believe no longer requires the execution of the sinner.

          Since murder is also forgivable, does Major feel that it no longer requires the execution of the sinner? Opposition to the death penalty is one of the holdovers of my Catholic upbringing I still support. It’s good that Major and I agree on at least one thing.

          I’m still disheartened to understand homosexuality required execution at the time the author pronounced such a penalty. That is murder by religious decree, and I oppose it. And unfortunately the words ARE taken as justification for bigotry. And that passage happens to be the subject of discussion, although I do appreciate Raymond sharing the reduced use of the death penalty under later Judaic law.

  5. Major,

    If noting contradictions in the Old Testament offends you, that is your personal issue. It is the behavior and hypocrisy of so-called Christians that most ridicules Christianity.

    Out of context, you say? That was the point the author made about the passage that many Christians take out of context to justify bigotry toward gays. Go back and read it…for context. 😉

    If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

    Are we to understand killing gays is not murder according to your belief system? Your context is missing, so clarification would help.

    Perhaps there is a “beam in your eye” that inhibits your ability to “Love your neighbor as yourself”.

    That is also your personal issue, as indicated by your impulse to level false accusations, and to frequently violate the Ninth Commandment regarding non-Republicans.

  6. Major,

    Wrong about what? Certainly not your impulse to level false accusations, and to frequently violate the Ninth Commandment regarding non-Republicans.

    You didn’t clarify whether killing gays for being gay is murder or not. It is or it isn’t. I say it is wrong to kill them. I disagree with the Old Testament. I have to understand you take the opposing view.

  7. Dave,

    I left your blog for the same reasons I’m no longer going to answer you here or on Tom’s blog. You continue to put your words in the mouths of others and then hold them responsible to you for an answer.

    Sorry pal, that dog won’t hunt/

Comments are closed.