BIBLE PLUS

The word of God has been the center of controversy since the beginning of the human family. The book of Genesis records the first attack against the word of God. "Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, has God said, You shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, You shall not eat of it, neither shall you touch it, lest you die. And the serpent said unto the woman, You shall not surely die: for God knows that in the day you eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and you shall be as gods, knowing good and evil" (Gen. 3:1-5).

Satan wanted to create doubt in Eve's mind. He was saying, in effect, "You mean God has actually forbidden you to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? His word is restricting your freedom. He does not have your best interests at heart." From that day onward, Satan has done his best to destroy men's faith in the word of God. In fact, from that day to this, Satan has inspired every attack against the Bible, whether those attacks have come from the Bible's avowed enemies or from those who claim to be its friends. He does not want anyone to believe the Bible came from the very mind of God. He is thrilled with people who accept other sources of authority in religion. Our lesson today is on the topic: "The Bible Plus."

Attacks against the Bible have come from many different sources, including many in the religious community. In his book, Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism: A Bishop Rethinks the Meaning of Scripture (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991), John Shelby Spong, the former Episcopal bishop, questions "how we Christians could continue to call the Bible the Word of God when many of its passages reflected facts that twentieth-century Christians simply do not acknowledge as true and attitudes that twentieth-century Christians do not share" (p. ix of the Preface). Spong speaks very disparagingly of the Apostle Paul. "Paul cannot be taken literally. He did not write the word of God. He wrote the words of Paul, a particular, limited, frail human being" (p. 105).

John Killinger holds an earned doctorate in theology from Princeton and another earned doctorate in literature from the University of Kentucky. Originally he was a theological conservative. In his book, Ten Things I Learned Wrong from a Conservative Church (New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 2002), Dr. Killinger asks: "Did he (Jesus) know he was going to die for the sins of the world? Highly unlikely. His statements about this are almost entirely in the Fourth Gospel, the most fictional and contrived of all the Gospels. The author of this Gospel did not write the life of Christ; he rewrote it" (p. 39). In case you might be wondering, Dr. Killinger makes John a liar and a deceiver. I think I understand the basis for Dr. Killinger's views. He says: "I have long felt a strong kinship to the Episcopal Church's Bishop John Shelby Spong" (p. 29).

Robin Meyers is a United Church of Christ preacher and a nationally known peace activist. His book, Why the Christian Right Is Wrong: A Minister's Manifesto for Taking Back Your Faith, Your Flag, Your Future (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2006), is about as far out in left field as the books of John Shelby Spong. I knew the book would be way off base when I took note of the men who endorsed the book: Bill Moyers, John Shelby Spong, Desmond Tutu and William Sloane Coffin. It is inconceivable that any of these men would endorse the plain teaching of God's word. Even though he is a minister of the United Church of Christ, he does not "believe ... the scripture is inerrant or infallible" (p. 64). He foolishly argues that "the doctrines concerning the nature of Jesus arose three centuries after his death" (p. 68). He asserts: "God is not a lawgiver and judge. He is pure compassion" (p. 71). Too bad he has not done his homework. Meyers' book may be one of the angriest books I have ever read.

I have one other book I must mention. Graham Johnston is an Australian preacher and lecturer at the Australian College of Ministries. His book has the title, Preaching to a Postmodern World: A Guide to Reaching Twenty-First Century Listeners (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2001). Johnston says two-thirds of Americans do not believe in objective truth (p. 8). According to postmodernists, "all you can believe is what's in your own heart." All you can "count on are intuition and faith." We must "give up on the idea of truth" and "have an experience instead" (p. 9). "Postmodenity is the worldview that says no worldview exists" (p. 27). Graham Johnston quotes Tim Keller on postmodemism: "We live in an amoral society - one in which 'right' and 'wrong' are categories with no universal meaning, and everyone 'does what is right in his own eyes'" (p. 41).

Have these views of the Bible affected for good or for evil the way modern Americans think of the Bible and the way they behave? The extreme attitudes of leaders in the American Episcopal Church have driven away many of their members and some of their scholars, such as, John Yates and Os Guinness. The journal, Firm Foundation, printed an article, "Why Bother?", by Dr. Earle West, a former classmate of mine, from Silver Spring, MD. Dr. West quotes these words from The Washington Post: "Finally, some Episcopalians in Virginia published an apology for their actions on the op-ed pages of the Washington Post which said: 'Episcopal revisionism negates the authority of faith. The 'sola scriptura' ('by the scriptures alone') doctrine of the Reformation church has been abandoned for 'sofa scriptura' (by the culture alone) way of the modern church. No longer under authority, the Episcopal church today is either its own authority or finds its authority in the shifting winds of intellectual and social fashion-which is to say it has no authority" (pp. 6-7).

On November 25,1984, the Mid-South section of The Commercial Appeal published an article, "Religion's Comeback: What Memphians Believe," by John Branston, a staff writer for the newspaper. Branston asked prominent Memphis religious leaders their views on the Bible, on evolution, on fundamentalism, on prayer, on heaven and hell, on prayer in the public schools and on other items. If time permitted, I would like to examine the attitudes of all of those preachers, priests and rabbis on all the topics I mentioned. But in our study today, I shall concentrate on what some of them said about the Bible.

Dr. Earl Davis, a Southern Baptist preacher, does not believe the Bible should be interpreted in a literal, wooden fashion. He denies that the Bible's intention is to be a book of science or history" (p. 8). I agree with Dr. Davis that the Bible's intention is not to be a book of science or history, but whenever the Bible touches on these topics, it is reliable. If it is not, it is not the word of God. Since God does not lie, his word cannot be wrong on any topic.

Frank McRae, a Methodist preacher and a member of the American Civil Liberties Union, illustrates what it means to believe the Bible plus. The Bible plus what? Please listen to Frank McRae. "We believe the authority of scripture has four points. One is scripture. One is our religious experience. One is (the) doctrine of the church and the other is our own reason. Others say we have no authority but scripture. Fine. So therefore you have different understandings of who is saved and who is not" (p. 12). I shall spend the remainder of our time today examining Frank McRae's views of authority in religion.

His very first statement is confusing. "We believe the authority of scripture has four points." Should he not have said: "We believe the authority of the church has four points?" If we believe in the authority of scripture, we cannot believe in other sources of authority. Please understand that Frank McRae has a moral right to believe whatever he chooses. But has he ever read and does he believe what Paul told Timothy? "All scripture is given by the inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished in all good works" (2 Tim 3: 16-17).

A brief examination of this vital passage should be helpful in our study of the topic, "The Bible Plus." Paul affirmed the inerrancy of scripture. He literally said: "All scripture is God-breathed." Can the God of heaven breathe error? Paul also affirmed that the word of God covers every possible phase of life: doctrine (or teaching), reproof, correction and "instruction in righteousness." The word "instruction" is a translation of the Greek paideia which means discipline or training. Paul goes a step further when he writes: The scriptures thoroughly furnish us unto all good works. This passage does not leave room for any other standard of authority in the church of the living God. Has God failed to give us in the Bible all we need for life and godliness (2 Pet. 1:3)? If he has given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, what else could we possibly need?

One of the sources of authority for religion, according to Frank McRae, is scripture. "One is our religious experience." I believe in religious experience, but is it a standard of authority in the work and worship of the church and for our personal ethics? If religious experience is one source of authority, whose experience should we consult for that purpose? Should it be the experience of snake-handlers? Should it be the experience of some of the people on Trinity Broadcasting Network who jump, dance, cavort and act like people at a rock concert? Should it be the experience of the people who profess to speak in tongues? Should it be the experience of those people in America who tried, convicted and executed witches? The truth is very simple: all experiences must be judged on the basis of scripture not the other way around.

Are you aware that secular humanists also appeal to experience as one of their sources of authority, especially in ethical matters? In the little booklet, Humanist Manifestos I and II (Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1973), members of the American Humanist Association explain: "We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics is autonomous and situational, needing no theological or ideological sanction" (p. 17). Whose experiences - those of religious people or those of secular humanists - should serve as guides for human behavior? I am aware that the experiences of the two groups would be very different, but how do we decide which are valid? As Christians, would we not have to examine all experiences in the light of scripture?

In addition to scripture and religious experience, McRae says his church follows "the doctrine of the church." What does he mean by "doctrine of the church?" It would be next to impossible to discover the "doctrine of the church." Even in apostolic times, there were churches that were already promoting false doctrines. For example, there were some churches in the province of Galatia that were mixing and mingling the Mosaic covenant and the gospel of Christ. Paul severely criticized those Christians. He even accused them of being "foolish," literally stupid (Gal. 3:1). The church at Pergamos had some members who held "the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a stumbling block before the children of Israel, and to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit fornication." Some of the members embraced the "doctrine of the Nicolatains" (Rev. 2:14-15).

In our generation, there are churches that teach every doctrine you can imagine. Some churches teach soul sleep, that Jesus is a created being, that heaven will be on earth, that we must keep the sabbath day holy, that the battle of Armageddon will involve 200,000,000 Chinese soldiers, that the Jews did not reject Jesus as their Messiah, that the church has not replaced Israel as God's chosen people, that God was once a man and that men will become gods.

Are there people who actually teach that we shall become gods? Dr. M. Scott Peck, a very popular writer, supports that anti-biblical and anti-Christian doctrine. In his best selling book, The Roads Less Traveled: A New Psychology of Love, Traditional Values and Spiritual Growth (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978), Dr. Peck says very plainly: "For no matter how much we like to pussyfoot around it, all of us who postulate a loving God and really think about it eventually come to a single terrifying idea: God wants us to become Himself (or Herself or Itself). We are growing toward godhood. God is the goal of evolution. It is God who is the source of the evolutionary force and God who is its destination" (pp. 269-270). Oddly enough, Dr. Peck claims to have been converted to Christianity. Many members of the New Age movement, such as, Shirley Maclaine and Neale Donald Walsch, and multiplied millions of adherents of various Eastern religions believe we are gods or will become gods. Incidentally, that was one of Satan's original lies. He told Eve: "You shall be as gods" (Gen. 3:5).

Frank McRae argues that the Bible plus "our own reason" is one of the ways we establish authority in religion. The Bible strongly emphasizes using our reason. The apostle Paul commanded the Romans Christians: "Be not conformed to this world; but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God" (Rom. 12:2). Paul provided the Philippians a list of attitudes and attributes Christians must cultivate - truth, honesty, justice, purity, loveliness, virtue - and then commanded the Philippians "think on these things" (Phil. 4:8). The tense of the verb "think" demands that Christians continually think on those things. The apostle Peter instructed his readers: "As new born babies, desire the sincere milk of the word that you may grow thereby" (1 Pet. 2:2). The Greek word translated "sincere" (logikos) means rational or reasonable. It is translated "reasonable" in Romans 12: 1.

As absolutely essential as it is for us to use our minds in reading and applying God's word, our reason does not serve as a standard for our service in the kingdom of God. I am aware of the emphasis some preachers and theologians place on scholarship, but some of the most brilliant minds in the world totally reject the scriptures or pervert them to justify their own views and pleasures. I have great respect for genuine scholarship, but which scholar shall we follow in religion? The majority of so-called "theological scholars" have little or no respect for the Bible. They elevate their own reasoning above the words of divine inspiration. If you are not aware of that, you are not keeping up with what is occurring in the religious world.

Frank McRae says: "Others say they have no authority but scripture. Fine. So therefore you have different understandings of who is saved and who is not." This is one of the strangest statements I have ever read from any preacher or theologian. If every church in the world used only the scriptures, why would they have "different understandings of who is saved and who is not?" Do you remember what Paul told the Corinthians about their divisions? "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same things, and that there be no divisions among you; but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment" (1 Cor. 1: 10). How can we speak the same things and be joined together in the same mind and the same judgment if we use religious experience, the doctrine of the church and reason in addition to scripture as the standards of authority in religion?

I have a question about salvation I beg you to consider. Where can we find the Lord's plan of salvation? There is hardly an easier question to answer. Let us consider just one example. Acts of the Apostles, the great book of conversions, tells of the great persecution directed against the church of our Lord. The Jewish authorities drove all of the disciples, except the apostles, from Jerusalem. "Therefore they who were scattered abroad went everywhere preaching the word. Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them.... But when they believed Philip preaching things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Christ, they were baptized, both men and women" (Acts 8:4-5,12). When they believed and were baptized, were they saved? If men and women in our day believe and are baptized, are they saved? If they are not saved, what else must they do to be saved?

Winford Claiborne

The International Gospel Hour

P.O. Box 118

Fayetteville, TN 37334