LIVING WORD OF GOD
Whenever a person-any person-makes a
judgment, there is always a standard under girding that judgment, even if the
person making the judgment does not recognize that fact. For example, if an
individual affirms: "I believe viewing pornography on the Internet is
wrong," he is saying there is a standard by which he judges that viewing
pornography on the Internet is wrong. He may not know what the standard is or
if it is a legitimate standard, but he is using a standard for making the
judgment.
What standard did Stephen Mansfield use
when he wrote the article, "Obama's faith fits our times?" USA TODAY
published Stephen Mansfield's article on Monday, June 1,2009. Mansfield has
written: "His (Obama's) big-tent approach reflects his diverse spiritual
journey. And he is perfectly in step with the country he now leads."
Mansfield says the president believes in a '''living word of God,' one that
ever reveals and expands, that comes from unexpected sources. 'When I read the
Bible,' he has written, 'I do so with the belief that it is not a static text
but the Living Word and that I must be continually open to new revelations
", (p. 11- A). I shall discuss two expressions from Mansfield's article:
"living word of God" and "static text."
The president probably means by the
expression, "living word of God," that the Bible can be interpreted
any way a person desires, even if the authors of the Bible wrote specifically
of a given situation. In other words, the Bible resembles "silly putty"
that can be shaped and molded in whatever way we choose. If we want the Bible
to teach evolution or drinking beverage alcohol or gambling, we find a text we
can twist to justify our preferences. Did President Obama learn his view of the
scriptures from Jeremiah Wright, a radical liberationist theologian?
Liberal theologians for many years have
approached the Bible like President Obama. They believe we can interpret the
Bible without being too concerned about the true meaning of the text. If you
think I might be exaggerating, I shall give you two examples. Two Quaker
preachers, Philip Gulley and James Mulholland, authored a book with the title, If Grace Is True: Why God Will Save Every
Person (San Francisco: Harper, 203). These two liberal preachers
affirm: "God doesn't restrict his communication to the Bible" (p.
19). If you wonder how an individual with even a smattering of Bible knowledge
could ever reach the conclusion that every person will be saved, Gulley and
Mulholland explain: God whispered that idea in our ears (p. 18). They claim to
believe that "God speaks fresh words.... The God who spoke to Peter is
equally committed to speaking to you and me" (p. 37). That was not the
Apostle Peter's view. He teaches that God "has given unto us all things that
pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who has called us
unto glory and virtue" (2 Pet. 1:3). If God has "given unto us all
things pertaining to life and godliness," what does that leave he has
not given to us?
Gulley and Mulholland have no problem
taking a text out of context to try to prove universalism. For example, they
quote these words from Paul's letter to Titus: "For the grace of God that
brings salvation has appeared unto all men" (Tit. 2:11). They conveniently
and deliberately ignore verse twelve: The Grace of God teaches us, "that
denying ungodliness, and worldly lust, we should live soberly, righteously, and
godly, in this present world." If people do not deny ungodliness and
worldly lust and live soberly, righteously and godly in this present world,
will that in any way affect their eternal salvation? Gulley and Mulholland are
guilty of doing what the Holy Spirit specifically forbad: wresting or twisting
the scriptures (2 Pet. 3:16).
Carlton Pearson's book, The Gospel of Inclusion: Reaching beyond
Religious Fundamentalism to the True Love of God and Self (New York:
Atria Books, 2006), twists many biblical passages in an attempt to try to prove
universalism. Pearson affirms: "The so-called word of God, referred to in
the Bible, is less the true logos (Greek for 'word') of God but rather
the word of man about God, as man perceives Him or Deity" (p. 8). Pearson says he accepts and loves
"the Bible in principle, but I do not see it as infallible, despite what
I've been taught all my life. In fact, any true biblical scholar must admit
there are many fallacies, errors, and contradictions in the text" (p.
118).
Is there a sense in which the Bible could
be called in the words of President Obama a "living word of God?" By
divine inspiration, the author of Hebrews wrote: "For the word of God is
quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the
dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a
discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart" (Heb. 4:12). The King
James Version is the only
version with which I am acquainted that uses the word "quick" in this
verse. Most versions use the word "living." The Greek word from which
the word "quick" is translated appears 142 times in the New Testament.
In Hebrews alone the word is used twelve times and is usually translated either
"living" or "live."
The inspired writers of the New Testament
did not hesitate to refer to the Bible as God's living word. The Apostle Peter
affirms: We are "begotten again, not of corruptible seed, but of
incorruptible, by the word of God that lives and abides forever. For all flesh
is as grass, and the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withers,
and the flower thereof falls away: but the word of the Lord abides forever. And
this the word which by the gospel is preached unto you" (1 Pet. 1:23-25).
Stephen referred to the Old Testament as the "living oracles" (Acts
7:38). Paul called the gospel "the word of life" (Phil. 2:16). The Lord
himself affirmed: "It is the Spirit that quickens (or makes alive); the
flesh profits nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and
they are life" (John 6:63).
In 1960 the A. J. Holman Company published
an outstanding book with the title, The
Biblical Expositor (New York). The book has chapters by some of the
leading evangelical theologians in the world: Carl F. H. Henry, Oswald T.
Allis, H. C. Leupold, Merrill
F. Unger, Kenneth A. Kitchen, Gleason L. Archer, Jr. and a host of others. One
chapter is entitled "The Living Word of God" and was written by Dr.
Wilbur Smith, one of the founding professors of Fuller Theological Seminary.
Dr. Smith makes four powerful points. The Bible is the living word of God
because its author is living, "it speaks of and shows the Way of
life," "in its pages the deepest problems of life are frankly faced,
and the solutions to these problems presented" and "the Word
communicates life" (pp. xi-xvi of the Introduction).
President Obama does not believe the
biblical text is "static." The word "static," as the
president used that word, means "standing or fixed." The Oxford American Thesaurus of Current English (New
York: Oxford University Press, 1999), edited by Christine A. Lindberg, provides
several synonyms of the word "static": unmoving, changeless,
constant, unvarying, frozen and standstill (p. 714). The president does not
believe the words of the Bible always mean what they say, although the Bible
itself both in the Old Testament (Dt. 4:2) and in the New (Rev. 22:
18-19}-forbids adding to or taking from the word of God. The curses of God will
be visited on those who alter the word of almighty God. And those who wrest or
twist the word of God do so to their own destruction (2 Pet. 3:16). Besides, is
it not the height of arrogance for a lowly human being to tamper with God's
living word?
Let's apply the president's idea that the
Bible is not static or changeless to see how it works in life. Let us start
with the Ten Commandments. I am fully aware that the Ten Commandments are not
binding on Christians, but we must examine how President Obama's beliefs would
have fit under the Mosaic covenant. God commanded the Israelites: "You
shall not commit adultery" (Ex. 20:14). Would President Obama agree with
Joseph Fletcher, the infamous situation ethicist, who said we ought to add the
word "ordinarily" to each of the Ten Commandments? If we were to be
so foolish, the commandments would read: "You shall not ordinarily murder.
You shall not ordinarily commit adultery. You shall not ordinarily steal. You
shall not ordinarily bear false witness against your neighbor" (Ex.
20:13-16).
If you have read the Old Testament
prophets, you know they did not and could not endorse theological or moral
relativism. God's great spokesmen believed that God's word was static. If you
have the slightest doubt about it, please listen to the words of some of the
faithful prophets of God. The 8th century B. C. prophet Isaiah told
the Israelites: "How is the faithful city become a harlot! It was full of
justice; righteousness lodged in it; but now murderers.... Your princes are
rebellious, and companions of thieves: everyone loves a bribe, and follows
after rewards: they judge not the fatherless, neither does the cause of the
widow come unto them" (Isa. 1:21, 23). The same prophet warned the Jews:
"Woe unto them who call evil good, and good evil; and that put darkness
for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for
bitter! Woe unto them who are wise in their eyes, and prudent in their own
sight! Woe unto them who are mighty to drink wine, and men of strength to
mingle strong drink; who justify the wicked for reward, and take away the
righteousness of the righteous from him" (Isa. 5:20-23)!
The leaders in the nation of Israel were
guilty of denying that God's word was static, although they did not use that
kind of language. The priests, the prophets and the political leaders were all
corrupt. Jeremiah, the 7th century B. C. prophet, could not have
been more explicit and more courageous in condemning the behavior of the
Israelite leaders. He quotes God as saying: "I have seen also in the
prophets of Jerusalem a horrible thing: they commit adultery, and walk in lies:
they strengthen the hands of evildoers, that none returns from his wickedness:
they are all of them unto me as Sodom, and the inhabitants thereof as
Gomorrah" (Jer. 23:14). Do the words of Isaiah and Jeremiah remind you of
what you hear on television? Were the words of these faithful prophets of God
static? Could the prophets and their hearers twist the words God had given and
still have God's approval?
Obviously, there are hundreds of other
passages I could read to you from the Old Testament. But we must examine the
words of Christ, of John the Baptist and of Christ's apostles. When Satan tried
to lead the Son of God into sin by challenging him to turn stones into bread,
our Lord said: "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that
proceeds out of the mouth of God" (Mt. 4:3-4). Do you get the impression
that the Son of God was telling Satan that "every word which proceeds from
the mouth of God" was static? Could the Son of God have said: "Every
word that proceeds from the mouth" is ordinarily static?
Did Jesus really mean it when he told his
disciples: "Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of
heaven. Blessed are they who mourn: for they shall be comforted. Blessed are
the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. Blessed are they who do hunger and
thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. Blessed are the merciful:
for they shall obtain mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see
God. Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of
God" (Mt. 5:3-9)? Are these beautiful and challenging views static? Do they
change if we find them inconvenient or politically incorrect? They will be true
as long as the world stands.
John the Baptist was unquestionably one of
the most courageous preachers who ever lived. He did not grovel at the feet of
King Herod even though he knew the cruel disposition of Herod. When Herod
committed adultery by taking his brother Philip's wife, John said as plainly as
words can be used: "It is not lawful for you to have her" (Mt. 14:4).
Since the word is not static, according to President Obama, would it not have
been expedient for John to have told the wicked king: "Ordinarily it is
wrong for a man to steal another man's wife, but since the word of God is not
static, surely God will overlook it this time?" How popular is John the
Baptist with the postmodernist crowd?
Many people within the New Age movement
openly endorse sorcery and other forms of paganism. The Old Testament prophets
strongly condemned such absolute foolishness. Jeremiah warned the Israelites:
"Therefore hearken not to your prophets, nor to your dreamers, nor to your
enchanters, nor to your sorcerers, which speak unto you saying, You shall not
serve the king of Babylon: for they prophesy a lie unto you, to remove you far
from your land; and that I should drive you out, and you should perish"
(Jer. 27:9-10). The psychics, the sorcerers, the crystal ball gazers and such
frauds lead multiplied millions into error and into eternal damnation.
The Apostle Paul encountered a sorcerer
whose name was Bar-Jesus. Paul and Barnabas were teaching Sergius Paulus, a
prominent political leader, the gospel of Christ. The sorcerer did his best to
keep Sergius Paulus from hearing and obeying the gospel. "Then Saul, (who
also is called Paul,) being filled with the Holy Spirit set his eyes on him
(the sorcerer) and said, 0 full of all subtlety, and all mischief, you child of
the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, will you not cease to pervert the
right ways of the Lord" (Acts 13:6-10)?
It is inconceivable that modern
relativists (that is, people who do not believe in any absolutes) would have
been so dogmatic in condemning the sorcerer. They might say: Since the word of
God is not static, we cannot be sure sorcery is wrong. After all, every person
has a right to teach whatever he believes and still call himself a Christian.
Besides, it is not politically correct to judge other people's beliefs and
practices. Do you not find it strange that no Bible writer ever took such an
unreasonable position? All Bible writers - from Genesis to Revelation -
emphasized the existence of truth, man's ability to know the truth and his
obligation to obey it.
The Apostle Paul's epistles are literally
filled with strong statements of belief and conduct. Most, if not all, the
Christians at Corinth were converted from a pagan background. Paul reminded
them of that fact. "Do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit
the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor
adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, not
thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall
inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you" (l Cor. 6:9-10).
There were Christians at Corinth who had engaged in all of these sins. When
Paul told them they were not going to heaven unless they repented of their
sins, was he saying the Bible's teachings on sexual immorality, theft,
covetousness and such like were static? Paul commanded the Corinthians:
"Flee fornication" (l Cor. 6:18). The tense of the verb "flee"
demands that Christians constantly flee from sexual immorality.
If you are a serious Bible student, you
know there are hundreds and hundreds of passages that demand explicit
obedience. For example, Paul commanded the Colossians: "Lie not one to
another, seeing you have put off the old man with his deeds" (Col. 3:9).
Is that a static command or can we twist and mold it to justify lying? I am
fully aware that many of our public leaders can twist any Bible teaching to
justify their behavior. But God's word means exactly what it says. We violate
the word of God when we claim the Bible is not static.
I shall close our study by reading to you
several passages which teach that the word of God is living, that is, that it
produces life. In his response to Satan's attempt to get Christ to turn stones
into bread, our Lord said: "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by
every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God" (Mt. 4:4). Did Jesus
believe his words were static? Although the word "living" does not
appear in the following passage from James, there can be no doubt of his
meaning. "But whoso looks into the perfect law of liberty, and continues
therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man
shall be blessed in his deed" (Jas. 1:25).
The Apostle Peter assured his readers:
"Seeing you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the
Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that you love one another with
a pure heart fervently: being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of
incorruptible, by the word of God that lives and abides forever." What is
the word Peter had in mind? Peter leaves no room for doubt. "The word of
the Lord abides forever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached
unto you" (1 Pet. 1:22-23,25).
I plead with you not to be deceived into
believing the word of God can be made to mean whatever we want it to mean.
Winford Claiborne
The International Gospel Hour
P.O. Box 118
Fayetteville, TN 37334