nilmot

Homosexuality

2006-07-11T08:24:00.000+08:00

I find it tragic that traditional Christianity has nothing to offer gay and lesbian people but a life of torment, guilt, emotional turmoil and loneliness. Within traditional Christianity there are basically two options for homosexuals, you must become "ex-gay" and live a life of denial, struggling against your true feelings, attempting to be straight, or you must spend you life-time fighting your feelings and live a life of enforced celibacy. Here one man tells his story of how he has resolved to live in a heterosexual marriage, whilst acknowledging his homosexuality.

"I've tried to change, tried to become heterosexual, tried just about everything to do so! Counseling, therapy, prayer, healing, you name it. But for all my trying, all I've managed to do is control the behavioral manifestations of my sexual orientation. God has given me the power to live a fulfilling heterosexual life, together with the grace to live with the fact that I'm still homosexual. It hasn't been an easy victory. There are times when maintaining this dichotomous life is nearly overwhelming.
Over the years I've continued to struggle with emotional attractions and attachments to other men that have torn away at my insides and eroded my confidence in myself and in God. I continue to struggle from time to time with thoughts that my wife and sons would be better off if they didn't have to deal with such a moody husband and fatherÂespecially his recurring bouts of almost suicidal depression.

Yes, mine is a victory in the sense that I have managed to maintain life, love, and fidelity in my marriage, but it is a victory that has required almost daily battle, and one that comes at considerable psychological cost to me and to my family."

Benny Hinn

2006-05-19T14:22:00.000+08:00

Well Benny Hinn is coming to the Sydney superdome in June, hosted by Phil Pringle's Christian City Church. According to Phil, "He’s the authentic article…he’s the real deal..and he’s a wonderful powerful man of God…doing an amazing work for God all around the world…and so ….I’m happy..and so we’re gonna have a great time."

I am sorry, but I truly believe that Benny has had too many second chances, it is time the Church drew a line in the sand and said 'sorry Benny, but enough is enough'. There has been too many failed prophecies, too many crazy shenanigens, too many falsely-claimed healings. Hinn's books, videos and DVDs should be pulled from the shelves, his T.V. shows pulled from the air.

This CBS documentary is a must see, it goes for about 40 minutes but is worth the watch.

And you have got to listen to this, here 'Darth' Benny places a curse on any man or woman who speaks against his minsitry.

Some of Benny's most famous false prophecies.

Listen here as Benny falsely prophecies that the Homosexual community of the US will be destroyed by fire no later than '95.

Here Benny falsely prophecied that Fidel Casro would die in the 1990's

Could John Howard be the Anti-Christ? “Oooh. A world dictator is coming on the scene - my! He's a short man. He's a short man! I see a short man! Who's a perfect incarnation of Satan . ... Never in my life have I had anything happen like what's happening to me now. This man will rule the world. The next few years you will see him. But not long after that you will see Me.” (December 31, 1989 at the Orlando Christian Center)

Hinn prophecies the Rapture to occur by 1992 “Paul, I can say this -- Are you ready for this? We may have two years before the rapture. . . Can I be blunt with ya? I don't know if we have two years left. . . I'm gonna prove to you from the Word tonight, that we have less than two years.” (November 9, 1990, Trinity Broadcasting Network)

Hinn prophecies the Rapture to occur by 1999 “Jesus is coming again within the next two years” (July 1997, Trinity Broadcasting Network)

And here are just some wild, unintelligable growlings from Hinn.

Commercialisation

2006-05-08T20:55:00.000+08:00

Michael O'Neil posted a link to this on PhilBaker.net. A thought provoking article from Christianity Today contemplates the commercialisation of Christianity.

"In an age in which any notable spiritual movement immediately begets a plethora of associated products (calendars, Bible covers, journals, T-shirts), the logic and form of commercialism demand our critical attention, not merely our easy acceptance. When does the logic of commercialism not make sense? When is it a problem to turn certain ideas or realities into merchandise? When is defying popularity and consumer demand an act of integrity? When should form outweigh marketability?"

Which is the right religion for you?

2006-05-06T17:38:00.000+08:00

I am not sure about this but apparently I am only 55% Christian, and would be better suited to Islam!!??

You scored as Islam. Your beliefs are most similar to those of Islam. Consider taking the shahadah and officially becoming a Muslim, if you aren't already.

[See updated quiz called "Which religion is the right one for you? (new version)."]

Islam

80%

Christianity

55%

Paganism

35%

Judaism

25%

Satanism

20%

Hinduism

15%

Atheism

Which is the right religion for you? (old version)
created with QuizFarm.com

Via Greg the Explorer

Evangelism

2006-05-03T21:01:00.000+08:00

Some interesting stuff on this website, LeavingFundementalism.org, here is an article about the evangelistic drama "Heaven's Gates, Hell's Flames"

"These kinds of methods -- and I accept the bizarre sincerity of the participants -- are the perfect recipe for creating an atmosphere conducive to emotional, psychological and spiritual manipulation. They belong in Hollywood blockbusters, where at the end of the night you can leave the theatre and get over the experience because, after all, it's just a movie.

Heaven's Gates, Hell's Flames, on the other hand, is not "just a movie". This is gospel truth. You are not being allowed to walk away having been entertained and then put it to the back of your mind. You are being asked to stake your life on the validity of what you've just witnessed."

"I defy anyone to watch this presentation and tell me it is not at root a kind of mind-control, whether intentional or unwitting. And I fear the same ethos, albeit not always so blatant a manner, is present in a lot of what passes as evangelism in fundamentalist churches: Teenagers are challenged to sign up to fundamentalist Christianity amid the intense excitement of a full-fledged rock concert in a darkened and noisy arena; an audience are asked to make a life-or-death decision whether to follow Jesus in the heady and charged atmosphere of a charismatic worship meeting; and people are confronted with the demand to commit the rest of their lives to a particular brand of Christian faith after a passionate speech from a revivalist whose power over his listeners really depends more on stirring rhetoric and appeals to base emotions than on the actual content of the message itself."

The Bible

2006-04-25T07:44:00.000+08:00

One of the problems in understanding the Bible, is the mistaken idea that the Bible can always be taken literally, at face value, and always applies to our circumstances. The idea that we can just take a verse or two from the Bible, to prove a point is far from adequate. Part of the problem can be in splitting the Bible into chapter and verse. We can pull isolated verses out of the Bible to prove most things from polygamy, to violence, materialism or slavery.

There are some interesting thoughts in this article from the ooze.com

"...we Christians rarely, if ever, get to see the NT as a whole. Rather, we are served up a dish of fragmented thoughts that are drawn together by means of fallen human logic. The fruit of this approach is that we have strayed far afield from the practice of the NT church. Yet we still believe we are being Biblical. "

"...verses were born in the pages of holy writ in the year 1551. And since that time God's people have approached the NT with scissors and glue, cutting-and-pasting isolated, disjointed sentences from different letters, lifting them out of their real-life setting and lashing them together to build floatable doctrines. Then calling it "the Word of God." This half-baked approach still lives in our seminaries, Bible colleges, churches, Bible studies, and (tragically) our house churches today. Most Christians are completely out of touch with the social and historical events that lay behind each of the NT letters. Instead, they have turned the NT into a manual that can be wielded to prove any point. "

Post-Charismatic

2006-04-17T22:45:00.000+08:00

There is some interesting stuff on Robbymac's website on the idea of being post-Charismatic, he defines it as this.

"Post-Charismatic

This phrase should not to be confused with being NON-charismatic, and certainly not as being ANTI-charismatic. The process of separating what is truly of the Holy Spirit and what is needless -- and often harmful -- baggage is the whole idea behind developing a post-charismatic understanding of how a supernatural God works supernaturally amongst and through the mystical gathering called the Body. In other words, post-charismatic, but not post-Spirit."

I can identify with what Robbymac is saying here. As a teenager I was drawn into the excitement and wonder of the Charismatic movement, yet within a matter of years, the hype and excitement evaporated leaving very little substance behind. Yet Charismatic Christianity doesn't have to be like this, and it shouldn't.

Many of us have grown tired of the hype, showmanship and manipulation, we have discovered that the smoke machines, flashing lights and emotionally charged love-ballads are ultimately empty. God is so much bigger than all of that. I for one, still desire genuine spirituality, yet I am not prepared to settle for anything less than God.

N.T. Wright on the Gospel of Thomas

2006-04-17T21:50:00.000+08:00

Not surprisingly, N.T. Wright has something intelligent to say about this 'gospel'. If you didn't catch this on Signposts, the full transcript of the sermon is here, it is well worth the read.

The Gospel of Judas

2006-04-10T21:14:00.000+08:00

There are some sensational claims being made about the newly translated Gospel of Judas, however, claims that it "casts doubts on Christianity’s most deeply held beliefs" are foolish indeed. It does shed some light on second or third century Gnosticism, yet unfortunately it sheds no new light on the historical Jesus nor the historical Judas.

From an article on beliefnet.

"...all gospels are not created equal. Some have more historical credibility than others, more claim to provide an accurate and nearly contemporary picture of the time of Jesus and his first followers. Among the various competitors, the four canonical gospels have no serious rivals. All were in place in substantially their modern form by around 100 C.E., and all describe historical settings firmly rooted in the first century. By contrast, the vast majority of Gnostic gospels were composed after 150 C.E., and many as late as 250.

Gnostic gospels also differ from the Big Four in their lack of interest in historical setting and background. In the Gnostic gospels, Jesus, Judas, Peter, and Mary Magdalene are not even historical characters, but have become mere mouthpieces for spiritual truths"

New missing link found

2006-04-07T08:35:00.000+08:00

As another missing link is found, many Christians will bury their heads in the sand claiming 'it is not a missing link, it is just a fish with partially developed legs!'

Many Christians, it seems, have now dispensed with literal 6 day creationism in favour of I.D. or progressive creationism. What is puzzling for me however, is that whilst many Christian will acknowledge that the scientists are right about the age of the earth and the universe, many can not accept even the possibility that the scientists may be on the right track with their theory of evolution.

Are we afraid of science? Are we afraid that evolution may one day be proven beyond all reasonable doubt? Would it crush our faith if it were?

If one no longer holds Genesis to be a scientific textbook on the origins of the universe, why would we rule out evolution as being a means that God could have used to bring about life? Is not Theistic Evolution a valid option? What stops us from accepting mainstream science on this issue? If we deny evolution in the face of mounting evidence, are we any better than those who denied a round earth or a sun centred solar system?

Any thoughts?

Narrow Theology

2006-04-06T22:04:00.000+08:00

Michael O'Neil posted these thoughts on PhilBaker.net, commenting on a quote from Jim Wallis.

"Evangelicalism in the US is sometimes beset by a strong internal political structure which serves to muzzle theological and ethical debate. Unless, for example, one adheres to a strict view of inerrancy, one may be labelled and branded in such a way that academic posts and publishing opportunities are restricted. This is unfortunate. Too narrow a view of Scripture has in many cases produced a narrow theology, and a narrow ethics. Salvation is individualised and internalised, and made too eschatological. Now salvation does apply to the individual and their inner relation with God which will culminate in eternal life in the hereafter. Absolutely. But to limit salvation to this is to brutally reduce the witness of Scripture."

It is indeed a tragedy that Evangelical Christianity has too often become not only narrow, but shallow as well. It is heartening to see that people like Jim Wallis, Tony Campolo, Brian McLaren and others are giving a voice to issues that have been neglected for too long and have brought some balance and depth to US Evangelical Christianity.

Ultimate Action Hero

2006-03-27T08:48:00.000+08:00

So, your son's Birthday is coming up and you're not sure what to get him, well look no further.

Abortion

2006-03-04T07:00:00.000+08:00

I must admit I haven't followed the whole RU-486 debate particularly closely, but in a book I recently finished reading I came across this quote that came from a sermon preached in a Presbyterian Church in Colorado Springs USA, the preacher's name is Bill Tilbert. I really like the sentiments expressed here.

"During the 1960's and 70's there was an antiwar slogan that asked, 'What if they gave a war and nobody came?' The point was what if there was a declaration of war and all the people just refused to participate? What if there were abortion clinics but nobody went in? What if abortion was a legal choice, but it was a choice nobody took? Changes in the law, blocking abortion clinics, demeaning name-calling will not stop abortions. The history of the church through the ages has been the history of changes brought about in society through the church demonstrating and living an alternative vision of life. We need to stop telling our non-believing neighbours how wrong their way of life is, and we need to start showing the power of the gospel in the way we live.... Let me ask you: Which has greater power? Ten thousand people who fill the streets in front of abortion clinics and shame those seeking abortions, or ten thousand people in California who take to the state capital a petition they have signed stating they will take any unwanted child of any age, any colour, any physical condition so that they can love that child in the name of Jesus Christ?."

Red Letter Christians

2006-02-25T13:46:00.000+08:00

Tony Campolo, in an article at beliefnet, talks about "red letter Christians"

"In those red letters, He calls us away from the consumerist values that dominate contemporary American consciousness. He calls us to be merciful, which has strong implications for how we think about capital punishment. When Jesus tells us to love our enemies, he probably means we shouldn’t kill them. Most important, if we take Jesus seriously, we will realize that meeting the needs of the poor is a primary responsibility for His followers.

Figuring out just how to relate those radical red letters in the Bible to the complex issues in the modern world will be difficult, but that’s what we’ll try to do.

Gandhi once said that everybody in the world knows what Jesus was teaching in those verses--except Christians! We will try to prove him wrong."

Megachurch - The Game!

2006-02-19T07:28:00.000+08:00

Finally what you've been waiting for, be your own Megachurch pastor with this Megachurch simulator for your PC.

Write a mission statement
Choose a logo
Get a billboard
Hire a professional musician
Buy plasma television for your PowerPoint presentations

But before you guys get too excited and rush out to Gamesworld to buy this, it is just a parody, unfortunately you can not buy this game. But keep your eye out, I am sure it wont be too long before we see something like this at Koorong.

From The Ooze

2006-02-13T22:16:00.000+08:00

Well it seems that there is another Lance White out there, he has written this article for The Ooze. It seems he is a little disgruntled also. Some interesting thoughts.

"I have been told that my life is filled with too much death, too critical, not optimistic enough, too much depression, better not talk about my 7 years of Satanism, don’t mention you were suicidal for 3 years Lance, don’t mention the suicides of 3 friends, don’t mention anything about the church being corrupt or driving you to suicide either. Well, then what is there to talk about? Oh yeah, just say something like this: I WAS A SINNER (5 seconds) THEN talk about how awesome it is to be a Christian and how the church has taken all of my problems away (4 minutes and 55 seconds)...and then, just maybe, just maybe you will be allowed to tell your testimony in public. "

"WE want you to know that we desire authentic relationships with those around us. Many of us did not grow up in a caring or normal family atmosphere and the community around us is the only family that we have. Please reach out to us and invite to your place on the holidays, allow us to join you for a meal, share in your family times with us. WE do not want the pain that dominated us in our early years to dictate the way we live in our later years. WE desire to love, appreciate, and accept those around us. WE do not desire to judge those around us."

"WE will persevere through life’s ups and downs. We have made it through this far and we didn’t come all of this way to give up now. WE love the church but WE do not like nor support what it has become in so many circles. WE do not believe that being a Christian means you check your brain at the door. WE do not believe that when you become a Christian it means that you have to vote conservative on every issue. And, WE do not believe that when you are a Christian the world around you is evil and you should have nothing to do with it."

Hillsong Vs Scientology

2006-02-06T22:14:00.000+08:00

On The Chaser web-site, Hillsong goes head to head with Scientology, in the Battle of the Cashed-up Cults.

Here is Tim Brunero's (of Big Brother fame) take on the Hillsong phenomenon, and here you can read about his encounter with Scientology.

NT Wright and the Historical Quest for Jesus

2006-01-29T09:13:00.000+08:00

From an article by NT Wright, titled Jesus and the Quest.

"I suggest, in short, that the return of YHWH to Zion, and the Temple-theology which it brings into focus, are the deepest keys and clues to gospel christology. Forget the pseudo-orthodox attempts to make Jesus of Nazareth conscious of being the second person of the Trinity; forget the arid reductionism that is the mirror-image of that unthinking would-be orthodoxy. Focus, instead, on a young Jewish prophet telling a story about YHWH returning to Zion as judge and redeemer, and then embodying it by riding into the city in tears, symbolizing the Temple's destruction and celebrating the final exodus. He would be the pillar of cloud and fire for the people of the new exodus. He would embody in himself the returning and redeeming action of Israel's covenant God. "

"What I am suggesting is that the view of God in this traditional Western picture is quite wrong. When we address the question, is Jesus God? Is Jesus divine?, we all too often start with the Deist picture of God, and then try to fit Jesus into it. As a result, we end up with a docetic Jesus-figure, who simply strolls around being God all over the place in a way which leaves no room for vocation, for choice, for obedience, above all for Gethsemane and the cry of abandonment on the cross. Instead, the whole New Testament invites us - no, urges us, insists to us - that we should start with Jesus and rethink our view of God around him. And when we do that, then of course what we find is the Old Testament picture of YHWH with a human face. This is the God who says `I have heard my people's cry, and I have come, myself, to save them.'" ... "The God who would not show his face to Moses has shown it to us on the cross. The face is wounded with the wounds of the world's pain and grief, scarred with the marks of the world's sin. It is the face which says: this have I done for my true love. On the cross, the living God says in action what Jesus said at his last great symbolic supper: this is my body, given for you. "

In What Way Does the Church Need to be Reformed?

2006-01-27T15:01:00.000+08:00

In response to the article in the SMH, Absolute Truth and Lionfish ask the question 'in what way does the Church need to be reformed?'

OK I believe the Contemporary Australian Evangelical Church needs to reform in the following areas.

We need to start giving a damn about Indigenous issues.
We need to seriously and intelligently give our attention to the issue of homosexuality.
We need to return to a Christ-centred/ cross centred gospel, as opposed to the feel-good motivational, prosperity preaching so prevalent today.
We need to embrace the Kingdom ethic as taught by Jesus in the sermon on the mount. Turning the other cheek, going the extra-mile, loving our enemies, forgiving those who have wronged us, being peace-makers etc.
We need to be financially transparent and we should consider whether it is ethical to profiteer from the gospel, for example, if it costs 50 cents to put a sermon onto a CD, is it wrong to sell it for $10 or more?
We need to re-assess the importance that has been placed on music.

The High Cost of Losing our Religion

2006-01-21T22:26:00.000+08:00

Lance posted a link to this interesting article in a comment at signposts.

"What is increasingly obvious is that, in the midst of the excitement and turmoil, those driving the social change of the 1970s failed to seriously understand the power of religion as a social force.

Many scorned those who tried to reform the church and argued it should be rejected entirely. Comments such as those of the theologian Mary Daly were typical: "For women to seek ordination in the Christian church is as destructive as it would be for black people to seek to become leaders in the Ku Klux Klan."

Their rationale was understandable, but intellectually, this was a major stuff-up. It's not a question of what they believed, but one of whether they recognised the importance of reforming the church."

From the Sydney Morning Herald.

Pride March

2006-01-17T21:40:00.000+08:00

A couple of weeks ago, whilst flicking through the TV stations, I came across Access 31, where the Gay Pride March was being televised, held here in Perth, a couple of months ago. I have got to say it was all pretty tame, nothing like what you would expect, if you were going by the media's usual representation of the gay community. During the 15 minutes that I watched, the most risqué thing that I saw, was a couple of guys dancing with no shirts on, and there was a float with a woman pole dancing, yet there was not a bare bum or breast in sight. (at least during the part that I watched)

For years Christians have criticised gay and lesbian people, for being debaucherous, hedonistic, fornicators who like to flaunt their wicked lifestyle with public displays of gratuitous nudity and promiscuous behavior. Yet here were just ordinary gay and lesbian people, (and friends and family) from all walks of life marching for the cause of tolerance and respect. So no matter what your view on homosexuality is, that has got to be a good thing.

I am sure that ordinary gay and lesbian people are just as unimpressed with the perpetuation of vulgar stereotypical images when all gay and lesbian people want is to be loved and accepted for who they are.

Stanley Hauerwas

2006-01-15T15:23:00.000+08:00

In a brief interview at beliefnet, Stanley Hauerwas discusses Mel Gibson's 'Passion of the Christ', atonement theology, and his book 'A Cross-Shattered Christ'.

"You seem to critique the narcissism of today's Christians, saying "sentimentality is the urge to make the gospel conform to our needs, to make Jesus our 'personal' savior." This seems to echo what happened after the movie 'The Passion.' A lot of people were repeating the well-known profession, "Jesus died for me"—but with quite an emphasis on the 'me.'

(Hauerwas) That Protestant evangelicals would leave Gibson's movie and say "gee, I didn't know he had to suffer so much for my sins"—quite frankly, that's to make yourself more important than you are. It also underwrites satisfaction theories of the atonement, which fail to do justice to the fact that this is the second person of the Trinity who is suffering. "

Winning People to Jesus (Part 2)

2006-01-11T16:05:00.000+08:00

Not surprisingly, within Evangelical Christianity, evangelism is seen as being of prime importance. Therefore churches do everything in their power to get people saved, and it is interesting to note the methods used by churches in order to achieve this goal.

Entertainment is one of the main tools used by contemporary churches to evangelise, by putting on a song and dance, with flashing lights, smoke machines, humour, video presentations etc, and the service always ends with the emotional plea, to give your life to Jesus, with accompanying music of course. Now I am not knocking all that, but I wonder if that was what Jesus had in mind, and whether we have over emphasised this aspect of Christianity.

Perhaps we simply need to devote more energy to actually being Christ-like, by giving, loving, sharing, laying down our lives for others, rather than simply trying to convince everyone else that they need Jesus in their life.

Is the Bible Infallible? (Part 3)

2006-01-07T13:17:00.000+08:00

There is no book which I have a greater love of, and my faith is placed firmly in the Jesus revealed within it, so it is in no way my purpose to discredit the Bible, but rather to show that although the Bible may be inspired, it is not without contradictions. It is foolishness to hold naively to a doctrine which is patently false.

So to illustrate my point I have put together a Bible quiz with a difference.

Which of the thieves on the cross, reviled Jesus?
a) Both of them (Mt 27:44)
or
b) Only one of them (Lu 23:39-43)

What was Jesus offered to drink on the cross?
a) wine mixed with myrrh (Mk 15:23)
or
b) vinegar mixed with gall.( Mt 27:34)

How did Judas die?
a) He hung himself (Mt 27:5)
or
b) He fell & burst open. (Ac 1:18)

When did Jesus curse the fig tree?
a) After going to the temple (Mt 21:12-19)
or
b) Before going to the temple (Mk 11:15-21)

How many foremen and chief officials did Solomon have?
a) 3300 foremen and 550 chief officials (1Ki 5:16, 9:23)
or
b) 3600 foremen and 250 chief officials (2Ch 2:2,18, 8:10)

Where did King Josiah die?
a) Meggido (2Ki 23:29-30)
or
b) At Jerusalem (2Ch 35:23-24)

How old was Jehoiachin when he began to reign?
a) eight (2Ch 36:9)
or
b) eighteen (2Ki 24:8)

Who made the following prophecy? “They took the thirty silver coins, the price of the one whose price had been set by the people of Israel, and they gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord commanded me.”
a) Jeremiah (Mt 27:9-10)
or
b) Zechariah (Zec 11:12-13)

Who bought potter's field?
a) Judas (Acts 1:18)
or
b) The chief priests (Matt 27:6-8)

Winning People to Jesus (Part 1)

2006-01-04T16:29:00.000+08:00

Sometimes it seems that the only thing important to contemporary Christianity is winning people to Jesus. All manner of gimmicks are used to fulfil this quest. Now it seems there is a new tactic, massive give-away prizes such as cars and houses. This may all seem harmless enough, but this sort of thing does not impress me too much.

I guess what it boils down to for me, is that whilst competitions are not in themselves sinful, each of us knows what our motives are for entering competitions, it is the desire for money and/ or possessions... in a word, greed. So now we are using greed as a lure to get people to church, so we can win them for Jesus. Does this not seem a little incongruent with the message of Jesus Christ and the Apostles?

I guess it leaves me wondering whether Christianity is something to be simply lived out or is it something to be turned into a game show? Is Jesus just another product to be mass-marketed, complete with a catchy jingle? Is this a business where we set targets of 50 salvations for the month of January?

Perhaps I am being a little too cynical but it just seems a bit crass to me.

Is the Bible Infallible? (Part 2)

2005-12-28T21:45:00.000+08:00

We would all love it if Jesus had written an authoritative document, of which the original copy was still extant, which answered all of life's questions for all time. Everything would be black and white, there would be no questions, nothing to debate, no grey areas, wouldn't that make life easier? Yet God choose not to give us such a book.

Instead we have the New Testament, a book written by humans. It is not the literal dictation of God, it is a series of human documents, written 2000 years ago, steeped in Jewish and Roman culture. It may well be inspired but it is still very human. It is possible that whilst it may err in some trivial details, perhaps it is infallible when it comes to doctrine, but I suppose that it is also possible that the documents are entirely human, but still honest, factual accounts of God's workings. The fact that the Gospels are not inerrant does not make them untrue. Matthew and John may well have remembered some of the details of the resurrection differently, yet they are unanimous in their testimony that Jesus did in fact rise from the dead. There is no reason to doubt that.

I guess what I am getting at is that the gospel may be simple but the Bible often is not. Some see the Bible as an inerrant A - Z answers book full of black and white answers, yet in reality it is not. Simply pulling out a couple of proof-texts does not often yield adequate answers to complex questions, we must dig a little deeper to find a Christian ethic in relation to many of the tough issues we face, like war, capital punishment, homosexuality, euthanasia etc. Perhaps it was meant to be this way. Perhaps God wants us to dig deep in order to find the treasures of wisdom, after all, it is in the digging that is half the fun.

Is the Bible Infallible? (Part 1)

2005-12-27T18:17:00.000+08:00

The way we answer this question affects everything about the way we read the bible, yet I would venture to say that this is one of the most misunderstood doctrines of Evangelical Christianity. Somewhere along the line, a handful of Paul's letters, and a buch of other first century accounts of Jesus became canonised as the infallible word of God. Ironically whereas John asserts Jesus to be the Word of God, it is John's own words which have been deemed to be the Word of God.

It is understandable that we all want a book of infallible absolute truths, but if we are honest with ourselves we must concede that once the New Testament is held up to scrutiny, it is abundantly clear that there are many inconsistencies. Invariably when parallel accounts are given there are numerous small but real inconsistencies. A prime example of this would be the details of Saul's conversion in Acts.

9:7 "(Now the men who were traveling with him stood there speechless,
because they heard the voice but saw no one.)"

22:9 "Those who were with me saw the light, but did not hear the voice of
the one who was speaking to me."

Of course fundamentalists will for this, as with all other apparent contradictions, come up with an often elaborate explanation. In this case 22:9 is reinterpreted as meaning that they did not understand, rather than they did not hear. Yet the frequency of such contradictions is such that it is untenable to maintain that the Bible is without error. Using the principle of Occam's Razor, that the simplest answer is usually correct, I feel that there is no other option other than to accept that the Bible is not without error.

But if we accept this, then where do we go to from here, if the Bible is not inerrant, is it irrelevant? Can it still be inspired?

(To be continued...)