CHAPTER SEVEN: You Can’t Take the Bible Literally
June 30th, 2008 by Todd Johnson
We are at the final chapter before the intermission of the book. Thus far each chapter has been addressing “doubts” people have expressed that would keep them from becoming Christians. The next section of the book is entitled THE REASONS FOR FAITH, and I am really looking forward to that turn in direction.
In the meantime, the final chapter of the first section is chapter seven entitled You Can’t Take the Bible Literally. I am completely too swamped with responsibility this week so I’m unable to say much here at the outset. I will attempt to enter into the conversation throughout the week. So please forgive me for not saying anything here at the beginning. From the title you can see that this is a chapter very near to where my heart beats so I’m really looking forward to the dialogue about the most amazing Book imaginable - The Bible!!!
PS - I just received an email from a staff member at Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York (Keller’s church) informing me that they noticed our book club centered around their book. They want to contact me – I hope I’m not in trouble. (If I go down I’m taking you all with me!)
48 Responses to “CHAPTER SEVEN: You Can’t Take the Bible Literally”
Leave a Reply
About Todd
Name: Todd Johnson
Location: Grass Valley, CA
Contact: todd@crossroadslive.com
About: Todd is the husband of Sharon, the father of Morgan, Caleb, Makenzie & Claire, and a pastor at Crossroads Church. He considers each of these roles the greatest of privileges.
Verse of the Week
“Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.”
- 1 John 4:7-8 ESV
Now
Reading:
Systematic Theology by Wayne Grudem
“The Hidden Smile of God” by John Piper
“Pilgrim’s Progress” by John Bunyan
Listening:
Coldplay - Viva la Vida
Jack Johnson - Sleep Through the Static
Scott Cunningham - ‘Til the Whole World Hears
Archives:
- Devotionals (2)
- Quotes (1)
- Recommended Links (4)
- Recommended Resource (6)
- Sermon Wrap-up (5)
- Blog Archives >
Church Web Design - Trinet Internet Solutions, Inc.
June 30th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Since the cat is away, this mouse has to say that the cat should make up his mind if it is chapter 6 or 7. I put my money on 7. Rule #1. Hehhehheh. And if Pastor Todd goes down, I hope I do better than Peter.
June 30th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Todd,
I am changing my email address and changing the locks to my house. These new york christians are tough!
blessings ( but with a sword at my side )
ps. can you at least listen to some good christian music…like Telecast?
Also..if you like u2 and Coldplay…check out my FAVORITE non christian band at the moment KEANE, who opened for u2. Their song Crystal Ball is the Post Modern angst of this generation.
June 30th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
ps. Again Pastor, If my boy acts up at Retreat…you have my authority to ” lay hands on him”.
blessings,
June 30th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
before we start I would like to point out that Todd is reading another Piper book… Perry must have gotten to him.
June 30th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Actually, I haven’t cracked the book yet but I’m really looking forward to reading it. It comes highly recommended by a friend. It’s going to be my ‘vacation book’ this summer.
‘Above all Earthly Pow’rs is stretching me. (Wells uses a lot of words to say a few things)
“Jesus and the Eyewitnesses” is THE book to read if you want to understand the reliability of the eyewitness testimony of the New Testament believers. Another BIG book.
July 1st, 2008 at 6:08 am
Pastor Todd, That’s not fair. You changed your introduction to this chapter. I was awake most of the night with a song from Evita going through my head. Don’t cry for me Argentina, the truth is I’ve never left you. da da da da (I don’t remember the words here) da da da da I’m SIXES AND SEVENS with you. I’m trying now to replace the music with A Mighty Fortress Is My God. My wife, who I kept up last night talking about the blog, suggested you invite members of the Redeemer Church to take part in the discussion. (or maybe a later discussion on this discussion). Getting different perspectives on an issue is always a positive as long as they see things my way. Rules #1 and #2.
I don’t think you need to worry about them being upset at you. I am the only one who attacked Pastor Keller (you notice I now use his deserved title since I now know this is a party line)in a personal way when I intimated he had wandered off with his flock. Actually, I didn’t intimate it, I said it. What I meant was they had gone down the street to help out at a local soup kitchen and were coming right back. Now that I am off the hook, everything should be ok.
As far as chapter seven is concerned, I really can’t find anything to fault unless it is him restricting his answers to the Gospels only. Paul was also a contemporary figure (along with others whose epistles and other writings are in the New Testament) wasn’t he? But all in all I found the chapter uplifting. And I’m not just saying this to save face. Well, not entirely. I love you Pastor Keller.
July 1st, 2008 at 6:41 am
Joe - stop rambling!
I had the opportunity to speak with a young woman named Juliet who is the evangelism initiatives coordinator for Redeemer Presbyterian Church. She wanted to know about the book club because she found it intriguing. She (they) are looking for creative ways for evangelism and she saw this as great potential for that. I didn’t think this was such a novel idea, but they are seeing it this way. She hadn’t yet looked at the comments, but she has by now so you’re busted!!!!!!!!
In fact now that I think about it, you’re pretty savvy at pointing out (supposed) error in pastors (Keller and science / me and typos). Hmmmm…. I see how it’s gonna be.
I’ve got my eyes on you! (and NOT according to blogging rule #1)
July 1st, 2008 at 10:17 am
Oops. Time to pull in my horns. Sorry if my humor is out of line. What do you think of Redeemer folks being invited in?
July 2nd, 2008 at 7:28 am
Its Wednesday and only 8 comments…hmmmmm
My excuse? I finally ordered the book and waiting for it to arrive to actually make an informed review.
URSUS O
my nome de plume
aka.frank ordaz
July 3rd, 2008 at 8:02 am
I’m back to the computer after being away for a couple of days.
Joe - to answer your question about Redeemer folks joining us here… I don’t think that’s really going to happen. They will likely explore ways to do what we are doing in the context of their people and city.
I’d really love to hear some feedback on this current chapter which is a really good one. I learned from Tim Challies that controversy stirs blog activity while truth sits untouched. I think he’s correct.
July 3rd, 2008 at 10:00 am
Todd- I learned from Tim Challies that controversy stirs blog activity while truth sits untouched. I think he’s correct.
I have not received my book yet, but I can always find controversy. Do we take the King James literally or the Revised Standard? Have you noticed that people these days say ” The Bible is inerrant in the ORIGINAL texts”.
. There has been for the last half century a movement of “Dynamic Equivalency” in translating the Bible. The translators are put in the position of “interpreting “what they felt the writer is trying to say.Bruce Metzger being a huge advocate of this method of translation.
So which translation is the real word of God? Is it really that important? How far do we paraphrase God’s word? To accommodate the modern culture should translators now say ” Our Father and Mother who art in heaven?”
ursus O
July 3rd, 2008 at 11:26 am
Question… Where did the Gnostic Gospels come from and when were they written. Who decided, if they were valid or not?
If they were valid, it certainly would change our bible, as we know it now, right? Go for it guys!!!!!!!!!!!
Blessings..
July 3rd, 2008 at 11:39 am
Some say the Gnostic Gospels come from the pit of Hell, but I tend to think that they came from those first century individuals that had a dualistic attitude about nature. Flesh bad- Spirit good. It was an outgrowth of Plato. Plato said the body was the tomb of the spirit. Therefore Jesus could NOT have come in the flesh.
I have a copy of ” The Gospel of Thomas” and some scholars believe that it inspired Mark, Matthew and Luke. After reading it , I tend to disagree. There are some really weird sayings of Jesus in there that don’t sound at all like the canonical Gospels.
Who decided? The Early Church fathers decided.( they were Catholic).
They are definitely not useful for scripture but are useful to tell us more about Gnostics around the first 3 centuries.
ursus O
July 3rd, 2008 at 3:25 pm
This chapter reiterated some things that I have been taught and read about through the course of my Christian life. This was a very solid chapter for getting refreshed in the reasons why the book we all know and love is inspired from God.
Some points (some from the chapter and some not) why the bible is the inspired word of God.
Archaeological evidence - The bible gives names and dates to hundreds of real “places” that people lived, fought, farmed, died, and worshiped. As archaeologists unearth different parts of the middle east they are finding more and more evidence to the reliability of the scriptures rather then the contrary. one example is finding the name of Pontus Pilate found on ruin near what was then Caesarea Philippi. Heres the link http://formerthings.com/pontius.htm There are plenty more evidences that have been found that validate the bible if we choose to look. Compare this to the Book of Mormon which expounds about huge cities, battles, and civilizations which thus far has yielded no archaeological evidence.
The Manuscripts - We have over 24,000 partial and complete manuscripts of the new testament. Some dating to the first century AD. (a manuscript being anything copied before the invention of the printing press) When cross checked these manuscripts give almost identical readings of the New Testament. The only difference “usually” being grammatical errors but over all saying the exact same thing.
Church Fathers - These men were church leaders in the years before the Canon of scripture. Their combined writings (so I’ve read) can account for 95% of the new testament. Which means that those Christian leaders of the first, second and third century testified to the validity of what we now read in the our bibles at home. Google these men and their writings and read for yourself. Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Eusebius.
Fulfilled Prophecy - I’ve read, and correct me if I’m wrong, that over 60% of the Old Testament is considered prophetic. Multitudes of these prophecies have been fulfilled. over 350 alone in Jesus. Including his virgin birth, death by crucifixion, and resurrection from the dead. There also have been prophecies about ancient empires and world events that only God could speak about before it happened. Including the progression of world ruling empires from the book of Danial. From Babylon to Persia, to Greece to Rome.
The exposure of the leaders of the early church. The fact that the bible points out the huge failings of Peter, James, John, etc… if this was a man made book why would they make the Leaders of this movement look that weak.
and lastly (and in my mind the most profound) the evidence of 11 of the 12 apostles giving their lives for the sake of the Gospel and their beliefe and assertion that Jesus was risen from the grave. The accoutns of the apostles and how they died are horrifying. Including:
Peter being crucified upside down after watching his wife suffer the same fate.
James being killed by Herod with the sword.
Mark being dragged alive through the streets of Alexandria.
Bartholomew being flayed alive.
These men died saying Jesus was risen. They died because they would not renounce what they had seen. Why would these men go through such torture for something they KNEW was a lie.
Sorry I went long… but I felt like saying a ton since no one as yet has said much about the chapter.
July 3rd, 2008 at 4:01 pm
I just received my copy of the book and read the chapter.
Frankly I was a little let down. All of Keller’s points were valid, but as a former atheist I had a real hard time with ” supposed inconsistantcies” before I became saved. He does not mention that other than Tacitus and Josephus , who wrote many years after the fact, there is no mention of Jesus in current texts other than the bible. I am glad that he mentions the Gnostic Gospels as they are the fashion right now but are easily disproved with a little scholarship.
He did not seem to tackle those who want to allegorize the Gospels. In fact, Bultmann, popularized the notion that the Bible’s Myths are in actuality expounding DEEPER truths. Thus, changing water into wine , walking on water are myths that cannot be taken LITERALLY. I disagree with Bultmann’s view but it is still prevalent out there in liberal circles.
The part that hit home from the chapter ” As a student I was initially shaken”. Boy, did that statement hit home. When you hear this stuff for the first time it really throws you off.
Part of the problem, I believe, is that most Christians think Christianity started with Luther and Calvin in the 1500’s. Most Christians are cut off from 500 years of Church History and have no idea how the Council of Nicea for example settled the concept of the trinity, thanks to Athanasius. I can mention Augustine to someone and they routinely say…who?
I understand why Keller took the simple , eye witness evidentiary approach. I just thought he would get into the translations, inerrancy , infallibility thing. Probably good that he didn’t. Most people would be bored.
blessings
July 3rd, 2008 at 5:31 pm
SOMETHING MORE…….
The other day on Christian Tv..I saw Norman Geisler do his presentation for the proof for God. And on the next night saw Answers in Genesis do a similar presentation. However , Geisler mentioned that the age of the earth is not the issue, that its probably millions of years old. What was important was that God was the first cause. The Answers group said that any interpretation other than a literal 24 hour day for a day was deception.
Most skeptics have a problem with the Old Testament rather than the New Testament. Atheist Hitchens always attacks the Old Testament.I was hoping Keller would tackle the harder proof. Again, I understand why he chose the New Testament. To point the skeptic to Jesus.
blessings
July 3rd, 2008 at 6:44 pm
TW,Thanks for priming the pump.
Now that I’m understanding that Keller’s book is more evangelistic than apoligetic I’d have to say I think this was his best chapter. Frank touched on the strengths and weaknesses so I won’t.
Now TW brings up some good topics for conversations.
Frank answered the Gnostic question.
Mike the trustworthiness of the content.
But how did we get the bible?
Why not the Gnostics or non-canonical books?
What makes a book canonical material the Catholic Church?
The Catholic Church loves to tell the seperated bretheren that you have the bible because we gave you the bible. They also use this to justify when the Pope speaks ex cathedra its as authoritative as scripture thus new revelation. You see the Catholic Church holds that the scriptures are absolutely authoritative (when properly interpreted) when speaking on faith and morals but has error’s when dealing with (science,archaeology,etc.). Now the Protestent would say Sola Scriptura. That the scriptures are completely reliable and accurate on every area it touches on and that the canon is closed thus no new revelation.
Its two different ways of looking at the Word of God.
The Catholic Church would say God gave us the Church (Catholic) and the bibles authoritative because they’ve said its authoritative. Were the Protestant would say the bibles authoritative because its Gods Word.SO WHAT’S MY POINT!
The Catholic Church didn’t give us the bible. The Gospels and Pauls letters were being circulated and considered authentic and authoritative before the canon was officially canonized.
Now having said that I don’t want to discredit God’s work through the Catholic Church during the formulation but to say they gave us the bible is a streatch to say the least.
Now back from the bunny trail. This is a very complex issue and the process of decideing what should be in and what should be out involved.
1.Was it written by a apostle or a disciple under their direction.
2.Is it authoritative.
Using these factors and what was generally being circulated by the churches gave us what we now hold in our hands.
It is said and I think rightly so that God gave us the bible and through the Holy Spirit we discovered it.
P.S. Frank the 1611 Authorized King James bible is the only infallible authentic Word of God. hehehe
July 3rd, 2008 at 8:18 pm
P.S. Frank the 1611 Authorized King James bible is the only infallible authentic Word of God. hehehe
Some say it is..if you are using formal equivalency as a standard. I noticed in Keller’s footnotes that he referenced Metzger so I am sure he is okay with Dynamic interpretation.
I am not sure where you are coming from Tom. The ” Church” during the first 500 years was essentially Catholic. So it stands to reason that the bishops of that time had to decide and chose which books were to be included in the canon. They did not “give” us the bible but men of God were instrumental in recognizing which books should be authoritative.
It is said and I think rightly so that God gave us the bible and through the Holy Spirit we discovered it.-Tom
I am not sure what you mean by this. God uses men to work out his purposes on earth. The bible was not dug out of the earth and discovered ( my analogy). However, he has given us his Holy Spirit whereby we can discover truth from error and he has anointed individuals at certain times to work out his purposes against tremendous odds. You cannot read Augustine’s Confessions and not come away with the fact that he had a firm grasp of the scriptures.
Also , it is historically true, that it was common for writers in the first and second centuries ,to pen an apostles name to “their” epistle.
Forgeries were common. Thus, we can thank Early Church Fathers who knew the truth to discern a forgery. My reference for this comment is a book I read years ago called ” Pagans and Christians, the first 300 years” by Robin Lane Fox.
I did a sneek peak and read the intermission and I have fallen in love with Keller. A man after my own heart. He references the CREEDS as an anchor for orthodoxy . Now that is bliss!
benedictus
ps. Tom - I am now ursus O
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Sorry ursus O
Your right maybe I can explain were I’m comming from.The reason I went on the bunny trail of the Catholic Church is because the Roman Catholic Church trys to use the arguement that they gave us the bible and this verifies that they’re the “True Church” that Christ built on earth and if your apart from them your “seperated bretheren” and only have part of the “Truth” the bible which they gave us. But that were also missing the full “Truth” sacraments,Eucharist,etc.
ursus O said,I am not sure what you mean by this. God uses men to work out his purposes on earth. The bible was not dug out of the earth and discovered ( my analogy). However, he has given us his Holy Spirit whereby we can discover truth from error and he has anointed individuals at certain times to work out his purposes against tremendous odds. You cannot read Augustine’s Confessions and not come away with the fact that he had a firm grasp of the scriptures.
Thats what I meant.
The main point I was trying to make is the Catholic Church believes that their God’s “True Church” on earth and apart from them we wouldn’t have the bible. I was just trying to state (and not very well)that we discovered the bible not through the Catholic Church (as an organization) but through God the Holy Spirit.
I was also trying to point out that other churches were using them as scripture before the Roman Catholic Church was born (the church that we see today, that is post Constantine ) and if the church gave us the bible, as they say, these churches according to them wouldn’t have been able to know what was scripture.
Maybe I’m a little overly sensitive to this but I was trying to clarify terms and different positions on authority for someone who might be studying the issue for the first time. I can see I failed miserably but maybe this helps clarify my intensions.
I also think this has to do with the question were did we get the bible.
P.S. I agree with you on the early Church Fathers and the Creeds.
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:57 pm
2 Timothy 3:16-17 (ESV)
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.
2 Peter 1:19-21 (ESV)
And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
Romans 15:4 (ESV)
For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.
Luke 24:45 (ESV)
Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures,
Some good verses to chew on. It’s God’s Word. He and He alone will keep it pure and give us the understanding we need.
July 3rd, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Ursus O… You mentioned, asking someone about reading, The Confessios of Augustine and they would answer, who? I think most of that is because most people are not exposed or know
Or they just don’t have an interest. Sooooo don’t be to hard on them. You will have people who will ask why, where and when, they are the ones who read.
good authors, or do not have a pastor like Todd, who refers to good books all the time.
Yes, it is sad that more Christian don’t have more interest in there bible, where it came from, etc. I believe, it is powerful to have that knowledge. Did you know that St. Franicis of Assisi built the first Nativity Scene. Hey, how about that… you just learned something too.
Have you ever asked yourself why you read Augustine and why someone else has not? Does make use wonder, huh!!!!
Blessings…
ps. a big “THANK YOU” to all, for the info on the Gnostic Gospels. I have my home work.
July 4th, 2008 at 12:24 am
Thanks Perry for the scripture.
ursus O said “Who decided? The Early Church fathers decided.( they were Catholic)”
When you use the word “Catholic” in this context it can confuse people. Yes the early church was “unified” which I believe is the meaning of the word Catholic. Yet the Catholic Church we have today is nothing like the early church. Was Polycarp parading around with alter boys trailing, and a big hat pointed to the rafters? Correct me if im wrong but did not most of the pageantry and highly exalted tradition come “after” the council of Nicaea? The Church changed drastically after its exceptence into the Roman world. Making it,slowly but surely, into what we see today.
Tom is saying that today the Roman Catholic Church links itself to the early Church saying that they have given man the scriptures. When it wasn’t the Catholic Church at all compared to what we see today. It was God through a council of men that were being directed by the Holy Spirit. The fact that they use this today to promote the idea of their superiority over the Protestant Church is deceptive.
ursus O said “Also , it is historically true, that it was common for writers in the first and second centuries ,to pen an apostles name to “their” epistle.
Forgeries were common. Thus, we can thank Early Church Fathers who knew the truth to discern a forgery.”
I leave with this question. If all we had today (July 4, 2008) was fragmented manuscripts and broken pieces of things written 2000 years ago could Crossroads Church form a council to canonize scripture? Could this blog? Could ursus O?
Are we as regenerate believers in Christ able to discern what is authentic scripture or aren’t we?
July 4th, 2008 at 6:38 am
Wow! You guys have so much knowledge inside you. I have several more books to catch up on now. As far as the reasons for not believing in God expressed in chapter seven, it started me thinking about what the detractors used for their reasons in the rest of the book up to now. And that makes me wonder if, to some extent, the problem of getting people to accept God by talking to them is unsolvable. I’m not sure that people say to themselves “I want to believe in God but…” Maybe they simply don’t believe, and when pressured come up with reasons. It seems to me that the real problem is the inablity of people to believe in the supernatural except as a fairy tale or such. No one convinced me to accept Jesus as my personal savior. For some reason I just did. I think it is a faith/belief thing (at least with me). This does not in any way detract from theology or apologetics. I’m just not sure that they do much outside the belief. You will note that none of my statements are very strong, reflecting my own uncertainty about what I said.
July 4th, 2008 at 8:19 am
Thank you Mike
The reason I brought up the Catholic Church and their view of scripture is so hopefully people starting to study this doctrine won’t get side tracked or think less of the authority of scripture as I believe that view leads to. But will be encouraged that they can trust the scriptures as authoritative and sufficent for all we need for Faith and Christian living. Perry pointed out some of the scriptures that point to the completeness of the bible and that we can rest in the fact that were not missing anything. We have all we need to be complete equipped for every good work.
July 4th, 2008 at 8:46 am
Now We’re Blogging!
Happy 4th of July! I am so glad I live in America, land of the free and home of the brave.
You can’t blog like this in China!
I have a couple of insights I like to share since I received my copy in the mail yesterday. I have read 4 chapters and Chapters 3 and 4 are by far my favorites. He really writes in a clear folksy manner.
However, I think his Calvinistic leanings narrowed his approach in Chapter 2 “ How could a good God allow suffering” There is no mention of Free Will. There is no mention how man has contributed to part of the problem. And he seems to ignore the challenge that most atheists make. How could a good God create such a place of pain in the first place? What was God thinking? Is God Sadistic? Why even conceive of a world that would allow child rape?
If you had the foreknowledge that your son would leave home , pull out a gun and shoot and kill innocents at school, would you stop him? So they reason that our God is really powerless. I am not sure this chapter would be satisfying to the likes of Hitchens, I heard hitchens debate John Mark Reynolds of Biola and Hitchens just ate him forr dinner. Reynolds stiff Calvinistic predestination did not give him any lattitude to maneuver.
Its mainly because of these hard questions that Enlightenment thinkers turned to Deism. God created the World. Saw that it was good and then let man take it from there. God then decided to dispassionately watch. Deism helps God save face from al the hell on earth.
TW-Have you ever asked yourself why you read Augustine and why someone else has not? Does make use wonder, huh!!!!
Let me tell you what happened to me when I was “ shaken”.
I was saved. Great joy!
Then someone asked?
Are you pre -tribulation or post tribulation?
I said what?
Then they asked, “ Are you old earth or young earth?”
I said what?
Are you Calvinist or Arminian?
What?
Are you King James or the heretical NIV?
What?
Do you know that the early church hid the real bible?
What?
and on and on….so after I read that Chuck Colson read Augustine, I became curious and have been on a quest to learn Church History for the last 15 years. I shamefully have a copy of Eusebius .
will get back to answering Tom…
I leave with this question. If all we had today (July 4, 2008) was fragmented manuscripts and broken pieces of things written 2000 years ago could Crossroads Church form a council to canonize scripture? Could this blog? Could ursus O?
That would be presumptuous, but I sure hope so..only if Crossroads were the only church around. We would need alot of help. You are talking early copies.I would hope we could pool from people who know Greek for the New Testament and Hebrew for the Old Testament. The Early Church fathers chose those Gospels which they could iclearly identify with an apostle or an apostle’s associate. Therefore association was a key element, as well as Church acknowledgement to authenticity.
July 4th, 2008 at 9:18 am
Okay ..here is a little test. the following is the opening line from the Gospel according to Thomas…
” These are the secret words which the Living Jesus spoke and Didymos Judas Thomas wrote ”
blessings
July 4th, 2008 at 9:34 am
John 18:20
Jesus answered him, “I have spoken openly to the world; I always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all the Jews come together; and I spoke nothing in secret.
July 4th, 2008 at 10:20 am
Excellent
Now to be on point to the Chapter.
Are we to take demonic possession in the Bible literally? I have met “educated” Christians that believe that demons were an explanation to account for weird psychological behavior.
Also, Origen took the bible literally when he read ” some have made themselves eunuchs for sake of the Kingdom”. Origen proceeded to castrate himself! Ouch. Now that is taking the bible literally.
blessings
July 4th, 2008 at 10:55 am
Ursus O said “Are we to take demonic possession in the Bible literally? I have met “educated” Christians that believe that demons were an explanation to account for weird psychological behavior.”
I have thought a lot about this and cant even really comment. I think this could slide into another psychology discussion in which no one seemed interested in last chapter
Ursus O said “Also, Origen took the bible literally when he read ” some have made themselves eunuchs for sake of the Kingdom”. Origen proceeded to castrate himself! Ouch. Now that is taking the bible literally.”
Wasn’t he plagued with sexual temptation? Could we say this was virtuous? I don’t know but he sure wanted to be consecrated to God and not worry about his earthly distraction. Didn’t Augustine have a similar problem, but with him the word of God had a profound impact on him one day and he was gloriously delivered of his “thorn” in the flesh.
Origen took matters into his own hand “literally” (ouch is right) and with Augustine God saw it fit to deliver a man in bondage to sin through his mighty word. 2 ways at looking at the same coin.
Blessings Ursus O
July 4th, 2008 at 11:03 am
Mike-Are you saying that demons are not real or that possession is not real? Or that it would be hard to deduce the truth from the biblical accounts.
After you read and hear about the exploits of Father Malachai Martin, its pretty hard to come away with not believing in possession.
Maybe I should pluck out my eyeballs! It sure has been a mixed blessings.
<;v)
Santus Benedictus to you Mike…feel the holy water?
July 4th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
I’m glad I have a day off so I can post regularly today! Praise the Lord
Mike-Are you saying that demons are not real or that possession is not real? Or that it would be hard to deduce the truth from the biblical accounts.
Mark 5:1-13 Jesus in this scripture happens upon a man tormented by “unclean spirits” This man could not be subdued with chains or shackles and no one in the city could bind him. He would pace among the tombs bruising himself with rocks and making quit a ruckess.
When he saw Jesus he ran to him and begged Jesus not to torment him. Jesus casted out the “unclean spirits” and asked their name. Which was Legion for they were many. They then asked to not be sent out of the area but instead be put into some pigs grazing near by. Jesus gave them permission and they did. Next thing we see is the pigs throwing themselves into the water and drowning.
If this is a psychological condition how/why did Jesus put the “condition” into a herd of pigs that then drowned themselves in the sea.
I hope that answers your question.
p.s. I looked up sanctus benedictus and still cant figure out the holy water part. Thought for a second you were calling me a vampire
much grace
July 4th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Joe T said “Maybe they simply don’t believe, and when pressured come up with reasons”
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness “suppress the truth”. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.”
Joe personally I believe men all have a knowledge of God in them somewhere. When confronted with the truth they do, like you said, come up with reasons why they do not believe. Hence “suppressing the truth.” As seen in Romans 1 above.
We must pray and pray that the Holy Spirit would be used to open their eyes to the beauty of Jesus and the Gospel.
Joe T said “It seems to me that the real problem is the inablity of people to believe in the supernatural except as a fairy tale or such. No one convinced me to accept Jesus as my personal savior. For some reason I just did. I think it is a faith/belief thing (at least with me). This does not in any way detract from theology or apologetics. I’m just not sure that they do much outside the belief”
Couldn’t agree with you more. Except to say that apologetics can be used in accordance with the Holy Spirit to break down huge barriers a person might have in coming to Jesus.
grace and peace
July 4th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Tom-I hope that answers your question.
It does…………………… ……………..
Sanctus Benedictus…
I was having fun with the Holy Water statement. It is a Catholic rite of protection…in case of Vampires…you never know.
Off to celebrate the 4th!!!!!!!
which wert and ART!
July 4th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Anyone else out there in blog land that wants to talk? The kids are taking a nap and I get these moments none to frequently. Miss hearing a “viriaty” of posts.
Grace
July 4th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Ursus O, You’ve answered Mike’s questions twice and credited them to me?
July 4th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Mike… being raise a Catholic, I was reading up on the Council of Trent again. It seems, that is when the Catholic church really set down some very stern rules. Is this when the Protestant church pulled away, other than Luther?
How’s that for a question??
Blessings…
July 4th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
TW - Kids just woke up and now we are off… I will post tonight unless Tom gets there first
July 4th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Hey, good thing Ursus O is off to celebrate the 4th!!!! He writes so much, he is getting confused… needs a brain rest, maybe??? Whats the Ursus O ??? Sanctus Benedictus means Holy Blessing. Some times done with the sprinkling of water.
Blessings…:)
July 4th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
I don’t know much about the council of Trent. But it seems that some of the decrees that were laid down would definitely push those who were strataling the fence, between the ideas of the Reformers and those of the Roman Catholic Church, to one side or another.
Including Mary veneration
Saint Veneration
Purgatory
Indulgences
And not last but not least the authority of the Catholic Church in interpreting the Word of God. Going as far as to say that any interpretation that does not come from the church is heresy.
plus much much more. How much should we praise God for the Reformation. The freedom and grace bestowed from God! Amen!
July 4th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Mike… RIGHT ON….!!!! as an X Catholic, I would really like to share with you the “”"FREEDOM”"” that I have now, knowing the true Gospel without all the “”RULES”" to get into heaven. Some time ago, I had a 45 min. conversation with a priest about pugatory. We went at it!!!! At the end, he said, “When sinners are at the point, about going into heaven, they have a choice of either going to hell or heaven, after they consider their sins.” Needless to say, that is where we really got into it… the cross and the blood of our dear Jesus. I nearly yell at him… why would anyone choose hell!!!! About indulgenes… sometime ago, I looked into it, and could not “BELIEVE” that they are still teaching it. What ever happen to Luther? Wasn’t that all about indulgences? The sad thing about all of this as a Catholic is, you really never know if you are saved, unless you abide by the rules and then, you might go to purgatory…YUCK…
“”"”"”"”"”"”"FRE EDOM”"”"”"”"”"”"”" ”"”"” through the blood of Jesus.
Blessings,
ps. I know MANY born again Christian that have stayed in the Catholic church to share the truth. We are blessed.
July 5th, 2008 at 8:06 am
Back to torment TW….
Stepford God.
Before I received my copy of Pastor K’s book , I had preconceived notions of his tone , theology, and approach. My only keys were the comments posted here and the reviews on Amazon. I have reassessed my view of the last chapter and his book. All in All I think he is a wise man for not getting entangled in “intramural” discussions as he puts it.He comes off Fair and Balanced ( where have I heard that).I really respect his approach.I might be the one actually defending him from now on……
I thought his analogy of a Stepford God was insightful. Most skeptics have a preconceived idea of a Just God, a Loving God etc. They want a designer God according to them. As it says in Hebrews, the word of God judges the thoughts and intentions of the heart. The Bible exposes us and our worldview.
TW-Ursus is a character in Victor Hugo’s “The Man who Laughs” Great Book. He is a poor curmudgeonly itinerant philosopher actor travelling the country side in a mule drawn carriage ( like Gippetto in Pinocchio).He is often misunderstood but at heart, he is a kind soul.
Before I came on this blog, I was posting on Pastor Hopkins blog of Calvary Chapel Salem Ore. He is going to Seminary part time now and closed down his blog for lack of time. So I have fastened myself onto you guys like a tick. Sorry.
TW-in your argument with the priest, Pastor K. comments in the Chapter on Hell that unbelievers actually choose hell. That is the sorry condition of their heart. They think Hell is Heaven.
You will find no Catholic bashing here.
blessings
July 5th, 2008 at 9:09 am
Ursus O…. or Mr. Tick, I will get the book, “The Man who Laughs” sounds good. If I came across harsh about the Catholics, I am sorry. I have MANY friends and family that are Catholics and I love them dearly. And, many times we have good conversations about the rules, as I call them, which is a good thing.
Sooooooo you don’t have to torment my anymore, right??? just kidding 
I will have to share, that I have learned so much from all of you, thank you. I keep writing things down and looking them up… good for the old brain. Will really miss this, when it is over.
Blessings..
July 5th, 2008 at 9:39 am
TW-Read the opening line of a review on Amazon…
In the broadest terms, the central theme of this novel is: “Man’s cruelty against man”. More specifically, it maybe stated as: “The injustice and inhumanity meted out to, and the exploitation and oppression of the underprivileged, impoverished and vulnerable section of society by the privileged, powerful and wealthy.”
According to Hugo, this is the fundamental problem of mankind - in fact, the essential condition of mankind.
TMWL is Hugo’s most vehement denunciation of the evils and iniquities that exist in human society.
He has not just denounced (with bitter sarcasm) the masters of the human race-exposing the emptiness, immorality and meaninglessness of their lives-condemning their lust for power, their total disregard for the sufferings of mankind and their abuse of power and position- but has also shown how ugly and devastating is the oppression of the poor and weak.
and the final line in the review….
In the end, I’d like to say that TMWL is one of the most powerful and compelling novels ever written. It is more than just a novel- it is a great work of art. The fact that this novel is hardly known today and has always been either ignored or condemned by critics is a sign of the disintegration of literature and art.
My friend Tim and I read the book at the same time 10 years ago and we started a book club of 2 over the phone. This book will lift up and break your heart at the same time.
A young boys face has been disfigured by slave traders with a perpetual smile on his face……..
blessings
July 7th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Todd… I just received my Spurgeon book and I love it!!! The third word he quotes is, “AGNOSTIC” I thought you all would get a
from it, I sure did. “AGNOSTIC” One walking with me observed, with some emphasis, “I do not believe as you do. I am an agnostic.” “Oh,” I said to him, “that is a Greek word, is it not? The latin word, I think, is Ignoramus.” He did not like it at all. Yet I only translated his language from Greek to Latin. These are queer waters to get into, when all your philosophy brings you is the confession that you know nothing, and the stupidity wiich enables you to glory in your ignorance.–
Don’t you just love it??
Blessings…
ps. I am starting with page one and just going to read through it.
July 7th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
To lighten things up again…
Why did the chicken cross the road? Applied to philosophical and theological systems
okay..I have a little extra time on my hands today……
humanist - I cross therefore I am
sophist - it may be a good thing, it may be a bad thing to cross. Who can really know? Surely you can’t know.
Homer - It is a heroic act to defy inertia and cross the road for adventure
hindu- what road ?, the road is an illusion . Meditate on it and become the road
buddhist-contemplate each step and movement and regulate your breathing as you cross the road . It is a symbol of your spiritual journey.
christian- crossing the road is evangelistic , following the great commission. Somebody on the other side might not know Him.
existentialist- Crossing the road gives me meaning and defines my nature. The destination may or may not be important.
Darwinist - by crossing the road the chicken is partaking in a evolutionary step towards becoming an eagle
scholastic - Crossing the road shows the divine spark in the chicken to attempt an activity heteronomously
post modern - there is no reason to cross the road anymore if I don’t feel like it . When I come to that decision…I’ll let you know.
romantic ( pantheistic) - I experience God in crossing nature’s road and I partake and experience the divine joy in the action of passing through it, with it and of it.
marxist - cross in order to ignite the revolution of the proletariate . Revolt Now!
Bill Gates - I will virtually give you the experience of crossing the road in a box. Selling retail for $199.95
blessings
July 7th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Ursus O…. you have got to be kidding. The chicken did not cross the road today, man it was to “”HOT”" he was fried chicken.
Blessings…
July 7th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Good one TW…
My wife has asthma and she is suffering with the smoke.
I really am getting into Keller’s take on pointing the way philosophically to Jesus. He is good and his kind heart shines through. I really admire him.
The intermission is quite brilliant in that he lowers the bar metaphorically and gently disarms the reactive cynic and skeptic.
The High School Retreat must have been successful. My boy started reading the bible as soon as he got home.
You are awesome Pastor T!!!!!!!!!!!!
benedictus sanctus
July 7th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Great quote TW - Spurgeon had such a way with words.
Ursus - what have you done with Frank? I miss him.
Artists!?