Rob Bell, Love Wins

[shawn]

I've been going through some of Bell's understanding of scripture.  I will say there are some things that concern me a great deal.  Unless he is being misrepresented, I have read that he believes the Bible to be the work of men and they had agendas, denies the virgin birth, and believes hell to be a continuation state in the afterlife of "what reality we accept".

If these are true statements of his faith I am concerned with Bell's teachings being attatched to UR believers.

[shawn]

I didn't really know much/anything about him.  My concern is that he not be so unscripturally sound as to cast a bad light on peoples' perception of ultimate reconciliation - an "anything goes, you don't need to be spiritually re-born/come through Christ", etc. - but "oh yeah, there's no eternal hell".  But God knows what He's doing, and He'll use this or whatever else He chooses to bring about His will.   :thumbsup:

"Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."  I Timothy 2:4 KJV

Bingo.  I was writing the post above as you were writing yours.   :bigGrin:

[shawn]

I think this is a pretty good link.  I'm all for looking at scripture in new ways.  I do believe we need to be willing to allow the Holy Spirit to reveal new truths to us, grow us, and willing to lay down old belief systems if the Holy Spirit so leads us.  But, will the Holy Spirit lead us to places that are not scripturally sound?  If we have come to accept something in our spirit that is so clearly unscriptural then we must really take a fresh look at our beliefs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wSAEezBc3s&feature=related

[jabcat]

I can't see youtube from work.  I'm outright dogmatic about very few things, but this is one of them - in answer to your question "will the Holy Spirit lead us to places that are not scripturally sound?", I shout a resounding "NO!", and it would take a miraculous direct move of God Himself to ever get me to say differently.  :2c:

[shawn]

I can't see youtube from work.  I'm outright dogmatic about very few things, but this is one of them - in answer to your question "will the Holy Spirit lead us to places that are not scripturally sound?", I shout a resounding "NO!", and it would take a miraculous direct move of God Himself to ever get me to say differently.  :2c:

Exactly.  There are things that I consider truth beyond question (ie the Bible is the inspired word of God).  Therefore, I can not believe the Holy Spirit will lead us to places that are unscripturally sound. 

[Nathan]

I have mixed emotions about people who beleive they need to stand up in front of their congregations to tear down another brothers relationship with God.  I think this guy's argument isn't any different than some of the discussions we see here on the forum where we have one topic being seen from different perspectives because each individual is at a different place in God. 

As to this guy's argument about Peter having faith in himself . . .he's being a bit contradictive with his own words because on the one hand he's saying that Peter "couldn't" have faith in himself because he asked Jesus to call him out of the boat first . . .and yet Jesus couldn't have faith in Peter either because we're not to lean on our own understanding . . .so if faith wasn't involved on either side . . .what made Peter think he could walk on water and what made Jesus let him think he could do it? 

The guy then says if anything, Peter had "too much" faith in himself . . .which for me, woudl be a reason why Peter thought he could walk on water . . which would support what Rob was saying about Peter having too much faith in himself.  For me, much of what Jesus was trying to get his disciples to see is that the power that was in Jesus was being given to them as well.  He was "building" their faith  . . . not in their own works, but in the fact that the power of heaven is at their disposal.  He did the same thing with the feeding of the 5 thousand . . .it happened twice, the first time, Jesus just didi it all in front of them, the second time, he instructed them to do it . . .he was handing the reigns off to these men to carry on the same ministry he was doing himself.

I think the most powerful thing you could say to a person is "I believe in you".  And for God to come to man and tell us " I believe you can do this . . ." is such a profound thing . . that a teacher would go to the student and tell the student that "they" will be able to do greater things than the teacher . . . To be honest, I sense this guy taking issue with Rob is a fundamentalist.  He's relying more on what he sees Scripture to be literally saying rather than letting the Scripture become a living experience not based on knowledge, but relationship with the Father.

And I don't see Rob as a fake at all.  I see Rob sharing Jesus to the world through his level of experience and understanding, just like we're all to be doing, it's just in a different form from what religion is used to seeing.

[shawn]

Nathan, I think some pastors feel led to "tear down another brothers belief" because people within their congregation are asking questions.  If you have someone swaying beliefs of the congregation it's good to know he at least believes the Bible to be the inspired word of God.  And for me, I would personally have a huge issue listening to anyone who didn't believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God.  That pastor should as well.  Unless Rob is being unfairly represented.  I believe in his book Velvet Elvis he stated that he believed the Bible to be the work of men with an agenda.  For me, that's a problem.

[Nathan]

But there again, we have a limited understanding . . .because I for one agree that the Bible AS WE KNOW IT is not THE inspired word of God, it's merely a TRANSLATION of it, which leads to all of the division and destructive results people experience when trying to invoke their interpretations of Scripture on each other.  And as to the hidden agenda piece, I would give him the benefit of the doubt beings I've not read up on what his critics are trying to claim, and I could see how it could be misunderstood with this particualr topic because I also believe, just from what research I have done personally dealing with the original canon of Scriptures "coming together" for the first time had a lot of political influence in translations as well.

Knowing that much, I would beleive that's more of what he was eluding to when speaking about the Bible being written by men with personal agendas . . .not that the original authors had the hidden agendas, but the original "translators" that translated it from Greek to Latin, from Latin to English . . ."they" were those with the hidden agendas when they did their translating.

I beleive the original Scriptures are the inspired Word of God and I also believe as we are led of the Spirit in reading our favorite translations that they BECOME the inspired Word of God not because of the translations, but because of the Spirit of God in us that breathes life into the words on the page so that we find affirmation and consolation in the Scriptures "because" we let the Spirit REVEAL to us what's being said, rather than relying on our understanding of definition or pronunciation.

remember, people always search the Scriptures because "they think" they'll find eternal lilfe in them . . .but all Scripture does is point to Christ.  And I believe that's what Rob is doing as well.  He's pointing to Christ just as much as the next guy.  But because he has a different approach, others feel it's their right to take aim at him so they can PROTECT and DEFEND something that flesh has no power to defend or protect.  So all they really accomplish is tearing down another brother in the name of religion . . .here we go, all over again.

[Molly]

I think this is a pretty good link.  I'm all for looking at scripture in new ways.  I do believe we need to be willing to allow the Holy Spirit to reveal new truths to us, grow us, and willing to lay down old belief systems if the Holy Spirit so leads us.  But, will the Holy Spirit lead us to places that are not scripturally sound?  If we have come to accept something in our spirit that is so clearly unscriptural then we must really take a fresh look at our beliefs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wSAEezBc3s&feature=related

I think I understand what Rob is saying there.  When he says that Peter does not have faith in himself, he means faith in his ability to do something that Jesus has just told him he can do--walk on water.  We see Peter's faith when he jumps out of the boat [nobody else does that], so he clearly has more faith than those who stay in the boat, but then Peter takes his eyes off Jesus and starts looking at the carnal,-- the wind and the waves and the rain.  Then he presumably thinks to himself, this is nuts, I can't do this,  and sinks.  Jesus tells him he is  one of little faith because he doubted.  Doubting is to be doubleminded:  You can see the spiritual but you can also see the natural and you tell yourself--I can't do this, no way.  Haven't we all had to walk through that?  Rob is saying here have faith that you can do this because God has chosen you--I think that's what he means by 'have faith in yourself.'  In other words, understand that you are not doing it on your own carnal steam, you are doing it with God's energy--doing it through Christ, and therefore you CAN do it. 

[shawn]

I think this is a pretty good link.  I'm all for looking at scripture in new ways.  I do believe we need to be willing to allow the Holy Spirit to reveal new truths to us, grow us, and willing to lay down old belief systems if the Holy Spirit so leads us.  But, will the Holy Spirit lead us to places that are not scripturally sound?  If we have come to accept something in our spirit that is so clearly unscriptural then we must really take a fresh look at our beliefs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wSAEezBc3s&feature=related

I think I understand what Rob is saying there.  When he says that Peter does not have faith in himself, he means faith in his ability to do something that Jesus has just told him he can do--walk on water.  We see Peter's faith when he jumps out of the boat [nobody else does that], so he clearly has more faith than those who stay in the boat, but then Peter takes his eyes off Jesus and starts looking at the carnal,-- the wind and the waves and the rain.  Then he presumably thinks to himself, this is nuts, I can't do this,  and sinks.  Jesus tells him he is  one of little faith because he doubted.  Doubting is to be doubleminded:  You can see the spiritual but you can also see the natural and you tell yourself--I can't do this, no way.  Haven't we all had to walk through that?  Rob is saying here have faith that you can do this because God has chosen you--I think that's what he means by 'have faith in yourself.'  In other words, understand that you are not doing it on your own carnal steam, you are doing it with God's energy--doing it through Christ, and therefore you CAN do it.

For me, the way Rob looks at these passages are not deal breakers for me.  I often don't agree with a pastor about a particular view of scripture.  I don't judge the man and know that my understanding is also limited and can/will change with time.  As Nathan says, that's growth.  I embrace believers and teachers who I do not see eye to eye with on many issues.  I agree with relationship over doctrine.  Loving God and our neighbor are the most important commandments.  With that said, when I see things that I believe to be less doctrine issues and more issues with eroding the foundation of the faith ie Bible inspired, blood of Chirst a sacrifice for our sins, repentance, confession of sin etc. I will take issue.  Paul did so as well.

But, for me there are deal breakers.  It's when I will speak up and say this isn't right.  I believe the Bible to be the inspired, inerrant word of God.  This is not something that is negotiable.  I believe Jesus died for the sin of all mankind, and that we must confess our sins...another non-negotiable.  I seen one of Rob's videos where he was talking about repentance, confessing our sins and that it wasn't needed.  We just need to live in it.  The Lord's prayer is the example Christ gave to us about prayer.  In it was Jesus asking the Lord to forgive us of our sins.  There is a healing with confession, bringing sin into the open and asking for forgiveness.

There is something here that I touched on months back.  Where do we stop?  Where is this leading?  The main problem I had with questioning the motives of the men translating, was the fact that they also canonized scripture.  So, if you run with a continuation of that logic it can lead down the path of is our Bible inspired?  Which books are inspired?  What should we read and internalize as coming from God and what is coming from man?  It leads to confusion within the body, not liberty and clarity of mind and spirit. 

We can fall back on well the Holy Spirit teaches us.  Very true.  But, what is our compass?  When something enters our spirit, our minds and it feels right we tend to accept it.  But, if in that feeling it's based on something that is clearly not only not supported in scripture but rebuked in scripture there is a problem.  Our Bible was given to us by God to discern.   

[redhotmagma]

I'm reading through this  http://www.askelm.com/restoring/index.asp right now.  It goes through the canonization process, and he states that the new testament was canonized by Paul, Peter, and John.  Contrary to what most scholars believe.  He gives historical and biblical evidence, which in my estimation seems more reasoned than the usual, "well we don't really know who canonized it, but it was sometime in the 2nd or 3rd century".  I've actually spent 100's of hours reading about the historical reliability of the Bible, after reading the Davinci Code, and being fooled for a moment.  but it made me search and understand why the bible we have is reliable.  It strengthened my faith greatly.  But in all that reading I could never find sufficient evidence as to who canonized the NT.  I'm not done with the series yet, but so far the evidence is very well reasoned.

The reason I wrote this is Shawn said  "The main problem I had with questioning the motives of the men translating, was the fact that they also canonized scripture."
According to the above, thats not the case.  Which brings me to my point (which wasn't changed by the above link).  I believe the original manuscripts and copies of those word for word, are Inspired, Inerrant.  I don't believe thats the case with the bible you hold in your hands.  which is where translational errors and agendas such as "aionos"  come into play.  All the translations can't be inerrant because they keep being revised, and many contradict each other.  this is also the view taken by the majority of evangelical scholars.

[shawn]

But there again, we have a limited understanding . . .because I for one agree that the Bible AS WE KNOW IT is not THE inspired word of God, it's merely a TRANSLATION of it, which leads to all of the division and destructive results people experience when trying to invoke their interpretations of Scripture on each other.  And as to the hidden agenda piece, I would give him the benefit of the doubt beings I've not read up on what his critics are trying to claim, and I could see how it could be misunderstood with this particualr topic because I also believe, just from what research I have done personally dealing with the original canon of Scriptures "coming together" for the first time had a lot of political influence in translations as well.

Knowing that much, I would beleive that's more of what he was eluding to when speaking about the Bible being written by men with personal agendas . . .not that the original authors had the hidden agendas, but the original "translators" that translated it from Greek to Latin, from Latin to English . . ."they" were those with the hidden agendas when they did their translating.

I beleive the original Scriptures are the inspired Word of God and I also believe as we are led of the Spirit in reading our favorite translations that they BECOME the inspired Word of God not because of the translations, but because of the Spirit of God in us that breathes life into the words on the page so that we find affirmation and consolation in the Scriptures "because" we let the Spirit REVEAL to us what's being said, rather than relying on our understanding of definition or pronunciation.

remember, people always search the Scriptures because "they think" they'll find eternal lilfe in them . . .but all Scripture does is point to Christ.  And I believe that's what Rob is doing as well.  He's pointing to Christ just as much as the next guy.  But because he has a different approach, others feel it's their right to take aim at him so they can PROTECT and DEFEND something that flesh has no power to defend or protect.  So all they really accomplish is tearing down another brother in the name of religion . . .here we go, all over again.

All that sounds good on the surface Nathan but Paul often rebuked false teachers that crept in among believers.  Was Paul mere "tearing down another brother in the name of religion"?  He was defending the faith.  And while that is often distorted by man into a war of words and doctrines, Paul was well within his right to do so. 

This I will agree with wholeheartedly...

I beleive the original Scriptures are the inspired Word of God and I also believe as we are led of the Spirit in reading our favorite translations that they BECOME the inspired Word of God not because of the translations, but because of the Spirit of God in us that breathes life into the words on the page so that we find affirmation and consolation in the Scriptures "because" we let the Spirit REVEAL to us what's being said, rather than relying on our understanding of definition or pronunciation.

But, this isn't what Rob believes.  During an interview with Christianity today Mr. Bell is quoted as saying [The Bible is a] "human product...rather than the product of divine fiat". 
Also, from Mr. Bell-"This is part of the problem with continually insisting that one of the absolutes of the Christian faith be a belief that Scripture alone is our guide.  It sounds nice, but it's not true.  In reaction to abuses by the church, a group of believers during a time called the Reformation claimed that we only need the authority of the Bible.  But, the problem s that we got the Bible from the church voting on what the Bible even is.  So, when I affirm the Bible as God's Word, in the same breath I have to affirm the when those people voted, God was somehow present, guiding them to do what they did.  When people say all we need is the Bible, it is simply not true".

While I can agree with Rob about the fact that the Bible isn't all we need, I do believe God was present during canonization and led the process.  We also are absolutely dependent on the Holy Spirit for revelation.  Without spiritual eyes given to us by the Holy Spirit we can not possibly understand scripture.  But attacking the canonization process is a slippery slope.  What books of the Bible are inspired?  Which ones are not?  Somewhere I have to draw a line in the sand and have faith that God did indeed guide this process.  He did indeed protect the Scriptures.  And even though some of our english translation may have some flaws the Holy Spirit is fully capable and willing to guide me to the truth using those Scriptures.

And again another quote about how Rob sees our Holy Scriptures... "The people who eventually wrote all of this down weren't sitting there with their hand and the pend moving as if controlled by some outside force.  The Bible had agendas.

:mshock:

Sorry Nathan but this just doesn't pass the truth test.  This isn't about doctrine, it's about eroding the foundations of the Christian faith.  It brings confusion and insults the very word of God.  If I were to stand quietly in the name of love and getting along allowing this to pass it wouldn't sit well with my spirit.

[shawn]

I'm reading through this  http://www.askelm.com/restoring/index.asp right now.  It goes through the canonization process, and he states that the new testament was canonized by Paul, Peter, and John.  Contrary to what most scholars believe.  He gives historical and biblical evidence, which in my estimation seems more reasoned than the usual, "well we don't really know who canonized it, but it was sometime in the 2nd or 3rd century".  I've actually spent 100's of hours reading about the historical reliability of the Bible, after reading the Davinci Code, and being fooled for a moment.  but it made me search and understand why the bible we have is reliable.  It strengthened my faith greatly.  But in all that reading I could never find sufficient evidence as to who canonized the NT.  I'm not done with the series yet, but so far the evidence is very well reasoned.

The reason I wrote this is Shawn said  "The main problem I had with questioning the motives of the men translating, was the fact that they also canonized scripture."
According to the above, thats not the case.  Which brings me to my point (which wasn't changed by the above link).  I believe the original manuscripts and copies of those word for word, are Inspired, Inerrant.  I don't believe thats the case with the bible you hold in your hands.  which is where translational errors and agendas such as "aionos"  come into play.  All the translations can't be inerrant because they keep being revised, and many contradict each other.  this is also the view taken by the majority of evangelical scholars.

I'll have to read that link because I find the canonization process very interesting.  But, even without it I believe by faith that God protected the canonization process and that our scriptures are truly inspired by God.  From my understanding it was the Council of Carthage that finally accepted all 27 books of the New Testament.  There was much debate among the early church fathers...the same people that Rob states had "agendas".

[Molly]

I seen one of Rob's videos where he was talking about repentance, confessing our sins and that it wasn't needed.  We just need to live in it.

I heard someone say the other day that 'Repent' was the equivalent of the military order, 'About face.'   I think that pretty much sums it up. :laughing7:

If only we all could live in our repentence...

[Nathan]

Hey Shawn . . .I'd paste your post like most others do but it doesn't let me add anything without freaking out on me . . .it's been a glitch I've had for a couple months now.

At any rate, I really didn't see anthing wrong with what Rob was saying in your quote.  Unless there's still something more there that isn't being said.  But saying the Bible is from human product, granted, I'm sure it comes across as a heretical thing to say, and I'm even more sure that Rob is fully aware of that when he says it.  And I'm just as sure that he's aware of the verse that says Scripture is inspired by God.  And I'll even throw in the idea that the cannanization of Scripture and the translating of Scripture is actually two different issues.

The cannonization is merely accumulating epistles and texts already written by those believed to be legitimate authorities, into one volumed book so as to stomp out all of the false proclamations crooked men were making while claiming to be from authentic authors.

But the translation is not accumulating books, it's actually rewriting Scripture.  And like you, Shawn, I believe in faith that God's hand was very much in the gathering of Scriptures into the agreement of one book.  But again, the culture of "our" day just doesn't grasp the kind of environment the religious church thrived in back when things were still at the infant stages of growth.  How is it that immediately "after" the translations first came out that the world went into what we now call "The Dark Age" of time? 

This is why I've said all along . . .before the topic of Rob Bell came into play, that the Bible as we know it, inspired when it was originally written, but not so much in translations from Greek to Latin . . .in fact, you do realize don't you that there was a reason why Latin was the first language it was translated into . . .not because Latin was the most common language, but because it "wasn't".  The Priests of the church were the onlly ones allowed to own and read Scripture to the church and the perishoners had no option but to take the priests word for it that they were reading what was written.  Because the priests were the only ones that knew latin.

I gotta to to another post, this one is freaking out again . . .

[Nathan]

I know this may be approaching the line of degrading the Bible but that's not my intent at all.  Like I said, I still do believe that Scripture is still inspired . . .but without the spirit engaged in us as we read it, our reading "of" it could be anything "but" inspired.  Which is why I keep repeating that we really should embrace the call to "walk in the spirit".  It's the Spirit's book that we're reading.  And the pattern that Jesus left us with while the Spirit was solely in him was . . .everything isn't what it seems to be on the surface.  But instead, everything has a spiritual principle lying beneath it.  So to sell yourself out on just what's literally written will always leave one coming up short of the mark.  And I think Rob sees that also when he talks about it being from men.

He's not denouncing the Bible anymore than I am . . .he references it constantly, he quotes from it constantly and he uses the very stories unfolding in it as his platform.  So this is not an attack against the Bible.  All it is, is it's an attempt to make people aware that just because one may have a disciplined understanding of the Bible, doesn't mean that "that" is the final word. 

The Bible, inspired or not, is limited.  It has a beginning and it has an end.  But the author that inspired it to be written has no boundaries.  And as I stated before, Scripture itself says that Scripture isn't what leads you into eternal life . . .all it is, is a sign that points you to where eternal life is, which is Christ.   He IS the volume of the book.  There's nothing wrong with the book, it's the perspective from which people are reading it that is defective.

As for absolutes . . .there are only two that I could stand on.  One is, God has (past tense) redeemed us back to him.  and two is, my perspective of him is EVER-CHANGING.  Outside of that, nothing for me is as absolute as what my mind may try to convince me otherwise.

[pilgrim1]

I couldn't agree more with you Nathan.
The Bible MAY become the Word of God only when it is enlivened by the Spirit. There is a reason why God did not have His Son Jesus dictate manuscripts to His disciples. This would have been entirely possible but it is not what Christianity was meant to be about. We ought not to idolise the love-letters whilst the Lover is still with us.

[jabcat]

I think for me the bottom line is, I hope Bell's beliefs, whatever they are, doesn't generally trash the scriptures as not inspired and reliable (given translational, interpretational, and Spirit-revelation issues) or deny that all must come through Jesus as those scriptures say we must.

I think there are good points made in the recent posts by several different people.  It's a topic that brings all types of opinions.  I can testify that during a period of time when I began to question the scriptures' reliability/authenticity, God's conviction on my life was very quick and sharp - leading me back to respect of their reliability, given the issues in parentheses in the first paragraph.

We also have this at TM as a guide;

http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/announcements/moderatortm_expectations_regarding_the_scriptures_7383.0.html

[thinktank]

I think there is inspired scripture out there and many times I have read the kjv bible and thought it must be wrong, but often through study and prayer it  does make sense and restores my faith that the translation is correct. But here is my dilemma, in that Jesus said to the scribes you shut up the kingdom of heaven to the people"

Now the scribes were scholars and educated, I often feel that the bible we have access to today was written for only educated people and I find the claim that it is easy enough for a child to understand, not entirely accurate, hence the hundreds of denominations. People like Daniel when they needed God they studied for hours and prayed and sacrificed and so did the majority of the prophets, so the question is "do we as believers have to go through this process as well, just to hear from God? But didn't Jesus come to help all people, and the Fathers good pleasure to give us the kingdom? That means to me that the bible should be understandable for all people to make sense of it without having the common man to behave as a priest, we also unlike the prophets, who prayed, they received direct 100% revelation from God, we as people often look for revelation on what they the prophets already wrote, so our job should be much easier, I do also believe that, yes certain truths need to be pressed into, hence revelations and prophets etc, who need to pray etc, but I still think the average person should be able to understand the bible and this is where I feel the the English KJV bible and subsequent updates has stumbled the people and has given birth to much of the early church (Constantine period), ideas such as ET, etc. The answer given is mostly that it is a spiritual fault, that we are at fault at the spiritual side and interpret the bible carnally. But what if Jesus wanted us to have a majority of agreement, a church that understands the scriptures thouroughly, this means that the route of the problem is not the spiritual aspect or belief of man but rather the framework the foundation of the faith, which is the English bible, or even the latin bible, since the kjv translators only did the best with what they had.

Somethings are understood clearly in the bible, e.g Jesus is the saviour of mankind, he rose form the dead, he was the Son of God etc, but there are things not so clear, that perhaps should be. Type of things that the average folk has difficulty with

Self defence, biblical?
Mosiac Laws are they a guidance to modern living?
Commandments relevant to gentile?
ET, lake of fire
Life after death?
To judge or not to judge?
Rebel against tyrranical governents, or obey them?

These issues, just a few are very important to the faith yet, no clear instructions, strong cases often are presented on all sides. Either for some reason God designed things to be as this, perhaps seperating the wheat from the chaff, that he makes things appear to be either way, so that the factor of choosing is our hearts.

Or the English KJV or latin it was translated from, was incomplete hence missing key scrolls(books) of information(instructions), or the scrolls we have were mistranslated or changed deliberatlily. One thing is that the kjv is often looked at but not the latin it was translated from. Perhaps the Latin was at fault, or perhaps earlier still, the Greek translated rom the Hebrew. To add further complexity, none of hypothesized errors might be deliberate or by mistake, but simply the result of language complexities of changing one form of word into another and the changing ways in which we use the same language throughout history.

[shawn]

I couldn't agree more with you Nathan.
The Bible MAY become the Word of God only when it is enlivened by the Spirit. There is a reason why God did not have His Son Jesus dictate manuscripts to His disciples. This would have been entirely possible but it is not what Christianity was meant to be about. We ought not to idolise the love-letters whilst the Lover is still with us.

That is certainly an interesting view.  Are you saying that by believing the Bible is the word of God, that is a form of idolatry?

[Lefein]

Bible worship is very possible; the Scribes and Pharisees did it.

The Word of God is Jesus, and well...if we want to be technical, the Bible isn't Jesus, and so isn't "The Word" of God, though it is a/the collection of inspired scripture.

The common use of the phrase "word of God" meaning 'collection of inspired scripture' is not the same as when people attribute that same phrase to saying that the Bible is "The Word of God" a title which belongs to Jesus alone.

Using the phrase 'word of God' vs. 'Word of God' - I'd say it is alright to call the Bible the word of God...just not The Word of God; when we call it The Word, we get into idolatry, when we call it 'the word of God' we get into a situation of cultural definition, and phrases...though I myself am uncomfortable these days with calling the Bible - The Word, whether capitalised or not.

I much prefer to call them "the scriptures", which is more accurate.

[jabcat]

Shawn, you said this;  "...or outright saying the Bible is the work of men with agendas.  No matter how many times he quotes the Bible he leaves the impression that he believes it to be a good book to guide your living but not the word of our living God.  If he doesn't feel like that, then he really should clarify.  But, in all honesty I believe this to be his stance.  For me, that's a deal breaker.  I can't listen to a teacher who doesn't believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God."  I agree. I really am not very open to someone who claims to be a believer yet trashes the scriptures - honestly, I don't trust or respect their perspective.  They can say anything, "God told me", "God led me", etc., etc., while denying a standard to which to measure their claims.  I certainly believe in Spirit revelation, but I don't believe the Spirit will EVER "reveal" or lead into anything that's incompatible with accurately translated, rightly divided scripture.

I don't know what pilgrim1 believes, I hope not what I'm about to say.  I've enjoyed his posts.  However, some claim that if one believes the scriptures to be inspired by God, and in their essence (especially the originals) God's Words to us, then yes, that is idolotry.  I believe that to be a deceitful, straw man argument, that is meant to distract from the fact that God's written Words are to be a standard for us.  Not His complete dealings with us, but a standard none-the-less - a way we can measure if someone's speaking truth or deceit.  God reveals Himself in many ways.  But I don't believe ANY way that will blatantly disagree with His scriptures to us, when accurately translated, rightly divided, and Spirit revealed.  I believe to deny that is to open up to much imagination, carnal speculation, and deceit dressed in sheep's clothing.   :2c:

[jabcat]

Bible worship is very possible; the Scribes and Pharisees did it.

The Word of God is Jesus, and well...if we want to be technical, the Bible isn't Jesus, and so isn't "The Word" of God, though it is a/the collection of inspired scripture.

The common use of the phrase "word of God" meaning 'collection of inspired scripture' is not the same as when people attribute that same phrase to saying that the Bible is "The Word of God" a title which belongs to Jesus alone.

Using the phrase 'word of God' vs. 'Word of God' - I'd say it is alright to call the Bible the word of God...just not The Word of God; when we call it The Word, we get into idolatry, when we call it 'the word of God' we get into a situation of cultural definition, and phrases...though I myself am uncomfortable these days with calling the Bible - The Word, whether capitalised or not.

I much prefer to call them "the scriptures", which is more accurate.

I usually say "the scriptures" as well, mainly because I don't want this particular argument and people's varying opinions/understandings from detracting from the primary point I'm often trying to make at the time.

However, I believe the scribes and pharisees misused the written Word, and missed the Revealed Word - Jesus.  They looked to and ONLY used the letter, and were not open to the Spirit and denied the Messiah.  IMO, that's how they failed.

I believe there's misunderstanding on BOTH sides of this issue - those that deny the scriptures, and those that get so dogmatic they insist on things like KJV-salvation and any other translations are of the devil - and then many variations in-between.

This is from a previous post I've kept for these purposes.  Hopefully it's helpful.

"My thoughts simply are, Jesus became the revealed Word in flesh, but His doing so did not negate the logos, which scripture states is forever settled in the heavens.  In my understanding (and I've had some very intense dealings from God regarding His Word) there's the Word (thought/intent of God), the written Word, and Jesus the Word revealed and come in the flesh - not one or the other.   

IMO, there can be a misunderstanding between the written Word, the spoken Word, and the fact that Jesus revealed the Word in flesh.  As I've said, I don't believe one negates the other.

John 6:63 Jesus said ".....the Words I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life".

John 1:1 Christ is the living Word of God.

I believe scripture (accurately translated, rightly divided, Spirit revealed - especially the originals) is the written Word of God, as evidenced by Jesus' statement Himself - John 14:23 JESUS (THE LIVING WORD) SAID, "if a man love me he will keep my Words".  (The Word saying keep my Word.)

Matthew 4:4 "It is written man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God".

John 15:3 Again, JESUS (THE LIVING WORD) SAID, "Now you are clean through the Word which I have spoken unto you".  (See it again, the Word saying the Word?)

Logos: Unchanging self-existent Word of God
  Psalms 119:89 "forever o Lord thy Word (logos) is settled in heaven".
Rhema: derived from the verb to speak. Romans 10:17 "so then faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God".

Shortly after God revealed UR to me, I was tempted to adopt what seemed to be a popular opinion on TM at the time, that Jesus ALONE was the Word, and that the written Word was suspect, unreliable, and not inspired.  God dealt with me swiftly, deeply, and painfully that I was to not go in that direction, and was to maintain a belief [and stance] that His written Word is just that - His Word.  Yes, Jesus is the Word -become flesh.  But God also has written Word and spoken/revealed Word.  They operate in tandem.  They don't exclude or diminish each other, and I don't believe I should either.

I later inquired (again) of God about this topic.  He immediately let me know He had already let me know.  I went to the written Word.  These scriptures are from perhaps the most literal English translation available, The Christian Bible (1991).

I John 2:7 The Law is called the Word that was heard  
        2:8 Then again, I am writing a new Word to you that is true in Him.
           :14 I have written to you...and God's Word is staying in you

Mathew 13:18-22  Jesus talks about the Word about the Kingdom, in the parable of the sower - Vs. 22;  "Now the one among the thorns into which the seed was planted, this is the person who hears the Word, but the concerns of this age and enticement or riches stifle the Word, and it beomes unfruitful.


Mt. 15:3  "Why do you step beyond the boundaries of God's Direction [Word] because of your tradition?  ...now you have invalidated God's Word because or your tradition."

Notice the differences, [1] and [2];

Rev. 3:8  You have kept [1] my Word and you haven't disowned [2] my name ("Yesu")

John 1:14 The Word became flesh

John 8:31  Then [1] Yesu was saying..."if you stay in [2] My Word, you are truly my students"
          37  "you are seeking to kill Me, for My Word has no room in you"

John 17:6,8  "I made [1] your Name apparent...they have kept [2] Your Word.  Now they have come to know that everything that You have given to Me, is from You, because they have kept the Declarations that you gave me, I have given to them, and they accepted them, and truly knew that came out from You..."

[Lefein]

A note of thought though (and I'll have to get back to your latest post Jabcat) is that even if (and I emphasise if) he (Rob) thinks of the Bible as "a good book" but not the "inspired word of God" (what ever that might possibly mean, and thousands of people have thousands of ways of defining what that means from literal red letter to spiritual truth collection); We should not assume that he is "trashing" the scriptures.  Trashing the scriptures is to treat them the way that very bitter, militant Atheists do, rather than the way people who respect it do.

I think there is a spectrum of things to work with when it comes to trashing vs. adoring the scriptures.  If I, for example, were to believe it were just a good book written by men with no divine intervention - that would not be me trashing the scriptures, that just means that I do not consider them to be of divine authorship.  However if I were to go around and call the scriptures the most heathenish thing ever to come out of the mouth of primitive desert people's mouths, fit only to be used to wipe my bottom with and burned for fuel or laughed at - now that would be trashing them...

But I don't think that he believes it is "just a good book" (I'd have to do some research on this Rob person to tell for sure) if he's quoting from it so much, and you don't have to believe that our modern day translations (like the KJV) are 100% perfect in order to believe that the Bible is inspired.  I'll give this example;

You can believe that the Bible is a good book written by men under the inspiring power of the Holy Spirit, though our modern day translations are imperfect - and still believe that the Bible is inspired.

You can also believe that the Bible is all of this, but that the ancient copies had some errors in them, or that the Bible had some errors in them even in the Autographs - and still believe that the Bible is inspired.

A fatalistic idea that "its either 100% or 0% trashworthy junk" is limiting, both in spiritual growth as well as in one's ability to receive the Truth, who is a Being before he is a Book.  It is somewhat the same "fatalistic" attitude that alot of our ET brothers have regarding salvation and Jesus; if we'll recall, are there not those who say that if Jesus saves 100% of everyone then he, and his sacrifice were completely useless?  This is a fatalistic, and as we can all who agree with UR espouse; very, very limiting to one's growth in God.  The same it is with the fatalistic idea that if the Bible is not 100% perfect then it too is useless, limiting and hindering.

I personally believe that we should rely on our relationship with God as our foundation of revelation, rather than the other way around solely - this is to say, that the Bible is an important tool for our walk with Christ, but it is not the "all encompassing fulcrim upon which the faith of a man in God, or upon which universe depends on for existence".

Abraham had faith in the True God before Genesis was ever written, as did everyone up til Moses, and even then the Bible was a work in progress, again I say I believe the Bible is important, a staple of our spiritual diet, it is a large portion of the meat and potatoes that constitute the health of our faith.  But it is not so to speak; "all" of the meat and potatoes.  There is still a huge pile of mashed potatoes and a thick cut of lamb steak and even more so than that, a whole plate of living bread and a large pitcher of living water - Jesus, that is not "The Bible" which is a baked potato and a cut of beef on the plate, and some veggies - important to our diet, but not the sustaining Life Giving Meal himself.  If that makes sense.

I believe the scriptures are inspired, and I believe that the Autographs, as far as I can believe by faith since we do not have them - were inspired, and definitely God given in a literal sense.  But I also believe that our translations are imperfect and subject to a margin of error, (Aion?  Kolasin?  Hell?) not a huge margin of error; not in such a means that it is fit only for junk, no indeed!  The Bible is extremely important to our walk, but it is not "God-Perfect", as some would claim.  And I do not fatalistically abandon the Bible as worthless and idiotic just because I think it is only 90%, 95%, or so perfect rather than 100% absolute infallible in and of itself - infallible textually, and perfectly literally.

I live by this concept; The Spirit inspires, not the text.  Yet I still believe the text to be genuine enough to be useful, though I'll not make it (and what inevitably comes to being my personal interpretation of it) my Lord, over the actual voice (experiences I have with) of My Lord.

[jabcat]

Varying details of POV and interpretation aside, I think the bottom line for me is (and also for the purposes of the boards) is that the scriptures, accurately translated, rightly divided, and Spirit revealed are reliable - and our searching is within those scriptures, not against, or not arguing against either their inspiration or trustworthiness for matters of faith - again, given the bolded above. 

Several people have had their say, different views presented, and we may want to start working our way back soon to the OP.  Blessings, James.