Free To Be Loved
Jan.22, 2012 in
Podcast Episodes
In this episode Steve and Ray talk about living free from the fear of rejection based upon performance. Should we focus on how to avoid sin? Are we just sinners saved by grace? Should sin even be an issue for a believer in Jesus? Steve and Ray discuss trusting in God’s love and the ironic consequences of trying to avoid sin. Join in the conversation! We would love to interact with you here or on the Facebook page!
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:40:35 — 92.1MB) | Embed
January 23rd, 2012 at 12:48 pm
In light of your podcast, do you think that it is even worth having the Old Testament around today (except for possibly historical purposes). Just took my a$$hole pill – does anyone think it’s ok for me to burn the OT part of my brand new NIV, and maybe we should have dumped it from the repertoire long (~2K years) ago.
January 23rd, 2012 at 9:20 pm
Jim, I’m not sure how much of your comment is sarcastic, and how much is serious, so I’m not sure how to respond!! 🙂
January 23rd, 2012 at 11:05 pm
Guys, seriously, one of you best episodes ever. I was listening at my desk and felt leaky a couple of times. I’m going to take a few days and listen to it again. Really, some good thoughts.
January 24th, 2012 at 1:19 pm
Steve, my pill has now worn off (but no one can really tell the difference). The basic idea behind my weird comment is that a lot of the OT is performance/fear based. The Pentateuch is primarily filled with the OC laws/rituals, the Wisdom books with the relationship to an exterior God and the Prophets to remind the Israelites when they were straying from their OC contract and the potential consequences for doing so (i.e. you will be invaded by Babylonians etc).
Current Christian Religion is still based a lot on the OT, focusing on rules and generating a fear of the consequences for breaking them. Based on your podcast, I am wondering about the current value of the OT. I am speculating that God might even be surprised that we maintain so many copies of it since it primarily focuses on sin/performance/reward/punishment. Of course there is also the question of how much of it is really God’s actual words. Your podcast stirred this question up in my mind and I was wondering what others thought about this – i.e. the OT is fear/performance focused (opposite of your podcast discussion), so what value is it (other than for a historical perspective on ancient Israel)?
Also, has anyone read “The Bible is a Good Book, But God Didn’t Write It” by Bishop John Shelby Spong – I am thinking of picking it up soon, recommendations anyone?
January 27th, 2012 at 12:46 pm
Well…first of all, the Apostle Paul says that
“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17)
If anyone claims to follow Jesus, then they must, if there is to be any kind of intellectual honesty, say that the Bible is a reliable book- both OT and NT.
Keep in mind, Paul could not have been referring to the NT as “scripture” in this verse- it didn’t exist. Therefore the only possible explanation that exists is that he was directly referring to the OT.
I think that although we are learning MUCH about the unimaginable grace, mercy, love and overwhelming awesomeness and goodness of God, it would not be wise, in any estimation to say that the OT is garbage…or that it was not inspired by God- the Apostle Paul said it was…
Something to think about!
January 27th, 2012 at 3:11 pm
Chris, thanks for some good points and I appreciate your input. I am thinking more along mystical lines where the Holy Spirit would be the primary source for teaching/training in righteousness etc. (John 14:26). If Christ followers are actually new “creatures” (2 Cor 5:17, Gal 6:15), then I am speculating a new form of input is possible as well (i.e. Holy Spirit vs scripture). This is just my opinion on the value of writings (especially OT) verses new covenant life.
I am actually not trying to imply absolute zero value for the OT – just being (partially) sarcastic (as Steve pointed out) when implying an OT book burning event.
Also, I’m trying for the Marcion Award in 2012. Can I count on your vote?
January 30th, 2012 at 7:55 am
Ha Ha… You bet, buddy! In all seriousness though, I understand what you are saying. I think that Jesus did exactly what you are alluding to when you talk about the Spirit “overriding” Scripture- he said so on many accounts; not so much that it was being “overridden,” so to speak, but that it seemed as if it was because the “original interpretation,” as it were, was so busted that when Jesus lived it out, He didn’t even resemble what was written…like when He said “you have heard that…but I tell you…”
February 2nd, 2012 at 9:43 pm
Hey Jim love your thinking 100%
we need to bring this stuff out.
I do struggle with the idea that all scripture is God breathed. I think you could be a follower of christ and dismiss paul, in theory. If you did you would have little to go on.
Almost all our “theology” come from him and John’s Gosple. The synoptic gosples do not seem to develop the idea of the Jesus is God as much.
So all scripture is God breathed. Hmmm. Well you could say god wanted to keep a record of humanities attempt to understand divinity. That God wanted us to look and reflect on how often we stuffed it up.
It is still clear that the vast amount of OT is nasty brutish stuff. So God breathed can not mean God approved.
February 4th, 2012 at 7:38 pm
Thanks for your comments Jim T. I suppose that it’s not so much the fault of the document itself but how it has been used. In the hands of some full on literalists, it’s a weapon – an AKG-KJV. It’s definitely nice to hear everyone’s thoughts on the subject as it has been a big part of Christian religion, and it my opinion there has been much confusion with respect to the “word of God” (bible) versus the “Word of God” (Jesus).
February 5th, 2012 at 10:57 am
Well Jim, what do you make of all the violence in the OT.
it seems that if those people believed God was ordering them to do this, then we must seriously question how well they understood God.
I see thatthe holy spirit wad constantly calling the people to be different from the people around them. In hindsight we can see that they were less violent than the rest of humanity.
But we still have Christians, in the US particularly,who see force and violence as a way to project the cause of God, nation, truth what ever.
So I thinker need to really question this idea of God breathed? What does it really mean.
February 5th, 2012 at 1:17 pm
Jim, I think that the original authors did not write with the specific intent to publish a Bible (obvious from the time span involved). To me the authors of scripture also didn’t become possessed by the Spirit where their eyes would roll up so that you saw their sclera (glowing aqua of course) while the Spirit possessed their hands to write each and every “thee and thou”. It may be that the OT writers were guided at times by their own emotions.
While the OT recorded violent events, it doesn’t mean to me that God was behind the killings or even endorsed them. Along with translation errors and cultural differences (including idioms used in the various eras) is the potential that the authors of the various books wrote in the voice of their own humanity. Difficult to comprehend scriptures (especially OT) may just reflect each author’s own emotions/perceptions – broken, nationalistic and sometimes even dark.
Also, much of our current thinking regarding the authority of the Bible originated during the Reformation era with a “sola scriptura” viewpoint that incorporated that era’s feudal system view of judgement, justice etc. More important to me is that Jesus came to reveal the Father and that He is love. To me the Holy Spirit, and not sola scriptura is our real guide to knowing the heart of God as revealed by Jesus.
So it seems wrong to use the scriptures (literal reading) to promote force and violence especially since we might not actually even understand them in their original context. But hey, I’m speculating a lot and I’ll never really know what really happened in the “good OT” days. I guess you just had to be there sort of thing (and the OT was before T-shirts).
February 5th, 2012 at 2:23 pm
@Jim and Jim Tiwi: Enjoyed reading your dialogue…thanks for sharing it with us! I especially resonate with this statement from Jim:
“More important to me is that Jesus came to reveal the Father and that He is love. To me the Holy Spirit, and not sola scriptura is our real guide to knowing the heart of God as revealed by Jesus.” 🙂
February 6th, 2012 at 4:56 am
Then there is a real serious question. Many bible literalist say that once you start saying parts ate wrong, then the whole thing unravels.
You no longer have an absolute authority.
So if we need to pick and choose what we agree with, how do we decide?
The only rational I see is to use Jesus life to read the OT. If we belive that Jesus was really God, not his biological son, then I can only imagine that what is inconsistent to Jesus life is not really God.
Still this all seems to mean that we no longer require the bible for salvation, it is only there as a guide to the lengths God has gone to work with people who struggle to understand.
March 19th, 2012 at 12:56 pm
Great discussion here. I have been struggling with these very things for the last few years.
A couple thoughts I have had so far (and not claiming any dogma either way):
1. Aren’t the arguments about the Bible (i.e., that we “need” it for salvation, that without it we would have no absolutes, that it is the “Word of God” rather than Jesus being the Word) all based in fear or a lack of trust in a living Spirit abiding in us that will instruct us in all truth? Aren’t these the same arguments that say that you can’t be a “Christian” if you don’t attend Sunday services, don’t tithe, don’t memorize Bible verses, don’t wash behind your ears or wear blue every other Tuesday, etc…?
In other words, our embrace of the Bible should not be based on fear– What would I do without it? Scaring people into something is a sure sign that it can’t stand on its own.
2. How can we really understand the whole idea of “scripture” without taking into account the entire history of the Bible and how we have this collection of writings in a single, bound edition? In other words, is the book, in and of itself, sacred, like some holy object, or is it simply one of many ways that God can (but is not limited to) use in reaching all of us who have wandered away from him? So, like a Sunday service, if someone finds that God speaks powerfully from the Bible, by all means read and enjoy it. If, for whatever reason, the Bible does not communicate the love and wisdom of the Father, then don’t worry about that and seek him where he is speaking to you. (Which brings up the usual fear that if people will just believe whatever weirdo ideas they like and how will we control people etc..? But that answers itself, doesn’t it? And even with the Bible and Sunday/Wednesday/Friday meetings and bible camps and conferences, people *still* think (and teach) all kinds of weird, contorted stuff anyway, so why not save the cost of admission? Little humor there). Do we trust Jesus and Father and Spirit to be alive and real in us or not? Is my loving Papa going to let me wander onto the interstate and get killed by a dump truck? Doesn’t he care far more about guiding and leading me than I do or the paid help in the pulpit or anyone else on this planet? Why are we so afraid of falling into error? Is this life with God really about a relationship or is it really about having all the right doctrines and the right behaviors?
3. Is it possible that both the OT and NT were written by people who had some level of relationship with God but did not see everything crystal clear, but only “dimly, through a glass” ? What basis do we have for believing that every, single word that Paul of Tarsus wrote to believers is straight from the lips of God? Isn’t that the way we treat him when we quote epistles like some kind of legal treatise or Supreme Court opinion, citing chapter and verse for this or that doctrine? Why can’t we just read Paul’s letters as… well… letters from a believer named Paul who lived in the 1st Century A.D. and spent the last part of his life talking to people about Jesus and helping them on in their journeys? Not every word is infallible, or is Paul the first Pope or Jesus, Jr.? If you read Paul’s letters without a bias of infallibility, there seem to be parts that *seem* to be contrary to what Jesus taught about authority and freedom of believers, places where Paul’s own prejudices and opinions and predilections creep in, just like you would expect if you read the letters of any believer… say the letters that Billy Graham might have written to believers in Atlanta after a “Crusade.” Are we really relying on the agreement of a bunch of 3rd or 4th Century leaders in the crumbling Roman Empire for the decision that all of Paul’s letters are absolute truth? Do we really need that in order to have a relationship with God? Can’t we just read Paul’s letters like anyone else’s and take the good from them and lay aside the… not-so-good? Would ask the same questions for the letters of Peter, James, John et al…
4. The Gospels seem a little different to me since they claim to be the recorded statements and actions of Jesus. It’s possible that the gospel writers didn’t get it all 100% accurate or even that they made it up, but the fact that the four gospels, written separately, agree in an overwhelming amount of places (and the few places where they disagree are unimportant) and that any outright fabrications would have been challenged by the Jewish community and de-bunked, is pretty strong evidence to me that we get a good picture of what Jesus said and did. Again, if my relationship with Jesus is real and living, then I don’t *need* the gospels, but they can be tremendously helpful in getting an idea of who he is and who Father is. But we don’t rely on the books as a *replacement* for our daily interaction with him any more than we would rely upon old love letters for our relationship with our spouse.
Well that’s good for starters, I guess. Not trying to be a flaming heretic, but it seems to me that once we leave the reservation of religious thinking and obligation, we cannot revert to that same thinking when it comes to even cherished things like the Bible. In other words, the bible has to stand or fall on its own merits, and not simply on appeals to fears and then-what’s.