On 4/14 at 7:07 AM Jeff wrote in response to the 96 Theses statement:
“Again: Why are Paul’s miscellaneous and often random organizational precepts, which in fact, if not in practice, have long been obsolete and dead in themselves…”
…his full, unedited rebuke is available there: and can be summed up as: “What we need is reformation from the likes of you and your ilk.”
This is my response to his zealous rebuke.
Dear Jeff,
I should hope you’ve never grown your hair long, or “allowed” your wife to speak in church, or reveal her hair by uncovering her head. That’s what was meant by the words: “miscellaneous and often random organizational precepts”, so unless you are still practicing all of those then you should and would admit that “in fact, if not in practice, have long been obsolete and dead in themselves.” Most mature believers agree that even beloved sacraments like communion are “dead” in-and-of themselves. So I will try to be patient in my response to your rebuke, as we all have plenty left to learn.
“What we need is reformation from the likes of you and your ilk.”
– Don’t worry, people like you far outnumber people like me. So you are safe and sound in your bibliolatry. You’ve got entire wealthy denominations that exist for the sake of defending your position. I imagine Paul said the very same about Peter at that point in their relationship. Ironic that you mention both in the same comment as Paul set himself against Peter, and against Jesus in Matthew 23 by his hierarchical church (and the predictable result when his teachings are not interpreted in light of the words of Jesus) about which he even admitted his writings were opinions. Just because Peter wrote less, or Paul wrote later, doesn’t make Peter the one that is wrong. Do you think when Peter says “we” he’s referring to Paul? At some points, perhaps, at other points, probably not.
Paul, Peter, Billy Graham, Joel Osteen… If you follow men, they will fail you. Follow Christ alone and let Him be the lens through which you interpret every other. The worship of Peter used to be called Popery. The worship of Mary, Catholicism. The worship of Paul, Protestantism. The worship of Jesus… who even knows what to call that anymore? “The Way”? That’s been hijacked. Christianity? Vague at best… Nazarene? Who knows?
“There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.”
– My favorite part of your contribution, thank you very much for this. Obviously a warning not to read Paul in a way that contradicts Jesus as so many do. Arguments like yours have been used to drown Christians who are baptized as adults, because to do so meant denying the validity of infant baptism. Burn those who will not kiss and worship images of not just Peter and Paul, but Mary, and even random other people through history that the “reincarnation of Peter” decides is also a “saint” in need of your allegiance. I imagine you recoil at the idea of worshiping Mary, yet defend the worship of Paul with vigor and passion. You wouldn’t call it worship, but to claim his words are the words of God himself, entirely, completely, without flaw, without blemish… Holy… You see where I’m going with that. bibliolatry is worship, and it’s misplace worship. The trinity consists of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit … NOT the Holy Bible. The Bible is my favorite book, I’ve read it through, and seldom go an hour without considering something from it, but I WILL NOT WORSHIP IT, not today, tomorrow or ever. Even if you throw me on a burning pile of wood as has been done millions of times before.
“Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteriesa wide and the tassels on their garments long; they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others.
“But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. The greatest among you will be your servant. For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.” – Matthew 23:6-12
I know it’s going to bug a good baptist like yourself to no end, but I’ll repeat it again, I have more than 3 witnesses as to the red letters (words of Jesus) in the Bible. 4 if you count the suspicious book of John, which is mostly consistent with the 3 witnesses. Of Paul, we have many known pseudepigraphs written by his contemporaries looking to boost their own credibility by using his name. Without the Gospel of Christ we cannot read or hear anything else rightly. However, I read the whole Bible, I appreciate Peter and Paul’s teachings. I just refuse to elevate them above Christ as Paul Himself warned against in so many places, in fact he even said he doesn’t qualify to be called an apostle (1 Corinthians 15:9) so what, was that magically not God speaking at that moment? What about those he disqualified from elder-ship? Shall we disobey one and obey the other? Bibliolatry is illogical, detrimental, and disturbing. Jesus said He was sending us the Holy Spirit, “The Counselor”, “The Comforter”, but nowhere did He say He was sending us more books to go with the other books… Ironic isn’t it, that the SBC has managed to use “The Holy Bible” to eradicate many of its own teachings about “The Holy Spirit.” Now you tell me who is the one twisting Paul’s words? “I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you.” – 1 Corinthians 14:18 … Defend that at a Bible-believing-Baptist-Bible-Study, then tell me about “my ilk”.
Don’t worry, my “ilk” are nearly extinct. Your “ilk” have been murdering my “ilk” since the beginning of the world. You’ll get your “reformation from the likes of you” soon enough. Probably in your lifetime, but if not, soon after. In the meantime, please consider worshiping Christ Alone. Please, if you must follow words in a book, then start with and exalt the red ones! Please, in the name of Jesus, please consider allowing the Holy Spirit to rule you more than the “Holy” Bible, especially when your opinions of the meaning of the words in that book are so skewed by yet more people that reject the sovereignty of Christ and attempt to get directly to God by making Paul synonymous with God and then twisting his words and the importance of them. The Bible is the basis, foundation, and a starting point for knowledge. Not its entirety. Jesus is King. Christ Alone is Worthy. Paul is a brother, Peter is a brother, and I sure hope you are as well.
Are you saying that the Bible isn’t important? Are you saying that you have all the answers? Sorry, couldn’t help myself.
I disagree with your assumption that Jeff is Baptist. The “good” ones quote the NKJV, not the ESV, and the really good ones, that haven’t been corrupted by “neo-orthodoxy”, use the 1611 KJV. If it was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for us!
I can’t help but wonder though, kind of heartache over, whether the controlling spirit (Jezebel) and the follower spirit (Ahab) hasn’t gained ground everywhere. The vanity of modern society is truly historic and the tolerance and even canonization of such behavior is off-the-charts. Come Lord Jesus, come.
So, you are saying, good Baptists only use the Government Authorized Bible, that was authorized by a government that they eventually rebelled against?
Who would read a Bible authorized by Bush or Obama other than to critique it?
Right, but in a satirical tongue-in-cheek way, kind of like “the best joke ever” does.
In reality, it’s sad, because while the 1611 KJV is a caricature of this behavior, none of us are immune to it in one form or another. So much so that Most American Churches are State Churches. After all, if the law labels one a criminal, then they certainly couldn’t be godly right? Romans 13 says so, right? You mean like “the criminal” Jesus?
It’s very sad, I’ll be writing soon about how Jezebel & Ahab hijacked church by twisting the teachings of Paul. I suspect that unless one tolerates at least one of those two they will be persecuted in nearly all modern assemblies. It’s terribly sad.
I’ve been asked whether inerrancy adherents are welcome here and I say absolutely. There is a lot of fear surrounding this topic, with many apparently convinced that questioning scripture is some kind of unforgivable heresy. Those that find this to be a heresy will likely find their own way out. We’re not here to scratch anyone’s itching ears, and I’m not aware of anywhere or anyone that believes that doubting inerrancy is an unforgivable sin. Most don’t even know what the unforgivable sin is. So that being said, please engage whether you’re a proponent or a skeptic.
I have a note in an old notebook from more than half my life ago where I jotted this well before I realized how difficult this topic would be to explore:
“I see two problems with this line of reasoning, 1. Those that believe the Bible to be infallible and lack the Holy Spirit, and 2. Those that believe the Bible to be fallible yet have the Holy Spirit…”
The above remains the basis of my agreement to oppose bibliolatry. I agree that the trinity does not include the “Holy Bible”. I also agree that the Bible is critical to understanding The Power from on High that Jesus sent to us. Yet I’ve seen repeated mangling of interpretations by those that claim to ascribe to inerrancy to the point that I must oppose the blanket claim. Not because I doubt God’s very words, but because I doubt man’s eyes, ears, and heart. Paul must be read in light of the Gospels. Allowing Paul to trump Peter, or anyone to trump Jesus, is a dangerous thing indeed.
Got this interesting response via email from “DM”:
You need to add a few more items to your 96 thesis…
Sunday is not “the Lord’s day”
“Jesus” is not the Lord’s name.
“church” is not in the bible.
God is One and not the “trinity”
Ryan, doesn’t your family observe a Saturday Sabbath?
Yes we do, and we do it relatively traditionally by beginning on Friday evening. I’ve written about it before. While I do endorse strongly obeying God’s command to keep the Sabbath Holy – which turns out to be incredibly difficult in our culture – I’m not sure I’d elevate the exact day of it to R2 thesis status. For instance, while the Sabbath dates back to Genesis 2, leap-year has only been recognized since the time of Jesus. Names of days, and how one counts them, are not as important as what the Sabbath does to ones heart. I love the fact that by observing the Sabbath beginning sundown on Friday, when I dive into work at sundown on Saturday, I have an evening and an entire day to focus on my home, my family, and my own priorities before going to work on Monday. I also don’t intermingle any church social hours I may participate in with my observance of the Sabbath. Those can hardly be claimed to be “doing nothing for yourselves”. Obviously, it’s a deep conviction of mine that I’m happy to teach about, but the theses IMO should be for blatant anti-Christ behaviors, and as we know Christ advocated strongly that man wasn’t made for the Sabbath. Though I thank God for teaching me to stop & rest.
As far as “Jesus” is concerned, I prefer Yeshua, Latin folks say “Hey-sues”, and the Asians we worshiped with for years said: “Yay-sue”. So when in fellowship with other believers and when writing I say Jesus because that’s how they know Him. Again, I have trouble thinking this is more important than the Jezebel/Ahab (sure to be a post soon) model of “the body” that we are opposing so strongly here.
So far as “church” is concerned. You wrote about that Les in Church or Kingdom among other places. This is a huge theme of this site. SHAMELESS PLUG FOR A REALLY GOOD BOOK HERE.
Concerning the Trinity, I believe that Jesus taught very clearly on the distinction between Himself and His Father. While they are one, He did say: “not my will, but yours, be done”. He also said: “Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you.” Jesus is the focal point of my Faith, but through Him I am also a son: “I am not saying that I will ask the Father on your behalf. No, the Father himself loves you because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God.”
While DM’s post is vague enough on that last point that he may be merely pointing out that God is truly over all, I may disagree with him entirely if he’s attempting to downplay the oneness of Yeshua & Yehovah. The Trinity is something that is challenging to discuss even face-to-face, and 2 of the scriptures that I model my opinions from are only found in the Gospel of John. In my personal encounters with God, whenever I’ve seen a human form, that form has been Jesus. In one encounter He even conveyed to me the statement: “this is how you know Me.” I am not as confident of John’s gospel, as I am of Christ, yet the two are consistent and my conscience is clear. While there may be fine points in orthodoxy concerning The Trinity that I may take issue with, I’m not aware of any part of that orthodoxy that merits opposition the way the 96 theses do.
Thanks for this email DM, and thanks for posting it Les.