I’m sure you have many friends who claim to be very spiritual, who love connecting with “God”, enjoy “feeling” his universal love, and even go on “spiritual” retreats and meditations. God is viewed as the life-giving force we all need to connect to, he is the Universe that empowers all life. These friends just love “God”. But when you ask them about the Bible, they think it’s irrelevant, patriarchal, just opinions or even hateful. The Bible is definitely not authoritative, respected or even listened to.
Isaiah the prophet
Chapter 7 in the Old Testament book of Isaiah speaks to this. Isaiah was a prophet that God called and commissioned to speak to God’s people on God’s behalf. God spoke to Isaiah and Isaiah spoke that message to the people, including the king of Judah, King Ahaz.
Verse 10 though contains a very interesting phrase. It says, “Again the Lord spoke to Ahaz”. This phrase is surprising because the Lord did not speak to Ahaz, but rather He spoke to Isaiah, who in turn spoke to Ahaz. What we learn from this short phrase is massively significant: it says “the Lord spoke to Ahaz” because it was just as if the Lord spoke to Ahaz. When the king (or anyone else) heard the Word of God through the prophet it was the same as hearing the Word of God directly from God, as if God spoke directly to them.
Massive implications
We don’t hear God speak audibly to us today in a booming voice from heaven. Nor do we hear God in the still, small voice of a mountain stream. God has revealed himself through the prophets and apostles, and ultimately through his Son, Jesus (Hebrews 1:1). God’s recorded Word in the Old and New Testaments is God’s present Word to us today (2 Timothy 3:16-17, 2 Peter 3:15-16). God spoke to Isaiah (and other biblical authors) and as we hear Isaiah we hear God’s word to us. In other words, we hear God’s word as we read and study and listen to the Bible (in context of course).
Rejecting God’s Word
What did God say to king Ahaz through Isaiah? God said, “Ask the Lord your God for a sign, whether in the deepest depths or in the highest heights.” (v11) God wanted king Ahaz to ask for a sign. We know that it’s always wrong to ask God for signs (because signs are interpreted too subjectively and almost always end up meaning what we want them to mean), except when God tells you to ask for a sign! But ungodly king Ahaz does not want a sign (as he has already entrusted himself to the king of Assyria), so he rejects God’s word to him albeit in religious language, “I will not put the Lord to the test.” (v12) Ahaz sounds all spiritual and pious, but he was simply rubbishing God’s message to him. Here is the clincher: Isaiah’s response to the message of the prophet is his response to God. In other words, our response to the Bible- God’s message- is our response to God himself.
You cannot say, “I love God, but don’t like the Bible.” Your view of the Bible is your view of God; your response to the Bible is your response to God. If you reject the Bible, you are in fact rejecting God. Finding God in religious books or in nature or in your own opinion of what God should be like, is not finding God. It’s simply finding what you or someone else thinks about God – which is probably at odds with what God has said about himself in the Bible.
Bible worship?
The motto of the denomination we are part of is, “God’s Word above all things.” We may be accused of having an overvalued view of the Bible (“God’s Word”). But I don’t think so. We treasure the Bible for we treasure God. We treat the Bible as authoritative and true, for that is how we view God. To have a low view of the Bible is to have a low view of God no matter how spiritual or pious you may sound.
Ps. Notice how Hebrews 3:7 says, when quoting from the Old Testament, “the Holy Spirit (God) says…”
Thanks for the short and long version clarification of your view. Thanks also for your honesty. I appreciate it.
Hi Gerschwin
My short answer is: yes.
(However, just for the record, the Bible definitely does teach heterosexual marriage as the context for sexual union. Thus it is not surprising that we are designed that way too.)
Here is my longer answer:
God designed the world so it fulfills the purpose for which God made it, thus God can call the created order “good” in Genesis1.
There is a certain design/order to creation, and we are called to live taking this into account. The Wisdom Literature in the Old Testament (e.g. Proverbs) is all about that. The wise person lives in a way that is consistent with God’s ordering of the world e.g. he is not lazy and works hard for his money.
However, “design/order” in creation is not the Christian’s authority. God is. That means the Bible is. So Paul can go against “design” in 1 Corinthians 7 and promote singleness for the sake of the gospel.
Again I would argue that the Bible (and therefore more specifically, the gospel, as the central message of the Bible) must be the Christian’s supreme authority. Where the Bible speaks directly or even indirectly to an issue, the Christian is called to obedience. Where the Bible does not speak to an issue, the issue is a matter of freedom, where the Christian is called to practice wisdom.
Thus on a more theological level, we (me and our denomination) hold to the normative principle, rather than the regulative principle. Obedience where God commands; wisdom where He does not; and one’s own preference where the Bible is completely silent.
Andre
I’m not sure I understand Andre. Could I ask a hypothetical question that could give me clarity. For the sake of argument, assume the bible didn’t speak at all to the issue of homosexuality. On your view, if the bible didn’t specifically prohibit it, there would be nothing wrong with homosexuality. Do I understand correctly? (It’s Gerschwin not olivia. Replying from her PC)
Hi Gerschwin
(Here it is:)
I think I agree with you to a point! General Revelation can only tell us so much about life and God, but it has its limits. To quote Wayne Grudem, with whom I agree, “we affirm that we can know something about God from the general revelation that is seen in the world…Although this is true; we must recognise that in a fallen world knowledge gained by observation of the world is always imperfect and always liable to error or misinterpretation.” (Systematic Theology, p 121)
Even the very clear element of design in the universe (I would argue), should be interpreted in the light of Scripture. We always interpret Revelation subjectively, even more so General Revelation. I guess I would be in the camp of those who argue that if the Bible does not speak to an issue (either directly or indirectly), then it is an issue of Christian freedom.
Thanks for your insights! Please continue!
Andre
From the comment widget on your sidebar it seems you’ve posted a reply to my post but when I check the post the comment isn’t there. Can you repost.
Hi Gerschwin
I think I agree with you to a point! General Revelation can only tell us so much about life and God, but it has its limits. To quote Wayne Grudem, with whom I agree, “we affirm that we can know something about God from the general revelation that is seen in the world…Although this is true; we must recognise that in a fallen world knowledge gained by observation of the world is always imperfect and always liable to error or misinterpretation.” (Systematic Theology, p 121)
Even the very clear element of design in the universe (I would argue), should be interpreted in the light of Scripture. We always interpret Revelation subjectively, even more so General Revelation. I guess I would be in the camp of those who argue that if the Bible does not speak to an issue (either directly or indirectly), then it is an issue of Christian freedom.
Thanks for your insights! Please continue!
Andre
Hi Andre,
Good topic for discussion (you know just how to pick them right?).
There is a sense in which I’ve come to realise that there may be a too strong a view of scripture. Let me first explain what I mean. Many people (teachers and theologians included) agree that God has given two types of revelation. General (GR) and Special (SR). However in practise, they only give credence to the second and ignore the first.
I came to this conclusion as I noticed how believers deal with grey issues. You know, those things that there is no explicit teaching or reference to in the bible. So in dealing with say “Issue A” we go look in the scriptures and then if nothing is said just use wisdom. The idea that God has spoken creation and Design doesn’t even make it onto discussion. And isn’t that what GR is? What we can deduce about God and his will from the way the world is designed.
I was encouraged when I later read this piece by JP Moreland. http://www.kingdomtriangle.com/discussion/moreland_EvangOverCommBible.pdf
I think he articulated it best by making the distinction between scriptures being the ultimate authority when it comes to knowledge of God as apposed it being the only authority. He agrees with the first and warns against the second. It’s an interesting paper and (I think) worth a read. It gets heavy in places but if readers understand what he is saying they may come way understanding why we as Christians have this ability to be able to confess Christ’s lordship with our mouths but not with our lives.