How Necessary is the Bible?

I still debate King James Version Onlyists (people who believe the King James Version of the Bible is the only version anyone should read) oftentimes, and their biggest premise is this: we need a perfect, God-inspired, and translated book in order for us to be saved and know anything about God and history (some would even argue for science as well), and they typically believe one cannot be saved without it- and, obviously, they claim this perfect book of God is the KJV. And if you can be saved by reading "modern versions" (such as the NIV, NASB, NKJV, etc.), one cannot grow spiritually with them- only with the KJV can this spiritual growth be achieved.

If the KJVO are right, then a perfect Bible has to exist somewhere, and only access to a perfect Bible can enable us to at least grow spiritually. If they're wrong, then we don't need a perfect Bible (and their KVO position falls apart).

Then there are the majority of Christians (at least, from what I know and can tell), who, while they do not believe in the need for an absolutely perfect Bible, do believe in the necessity of the Bible for salvation, growth, and knowledge of God and His ways and love. If they are wrong, then we do not need the Bible to know about God and be saved and spiritually grow.

Before I start, I wanna clarify: I'm not arguing that the Bible doesn't give any insight or help whatsoever to God and His ways and love, and I especially don't think we should throw it in the trash. It is a powerful tool and a fantastic gift from God to man and is one of Jesus's testifications of who He is. I'm only arguing against the beliefs that 1) without the Bible, all would be lost, and 2) the Bible must also be perfect.

A short passage I recently found (that has become my personal favorite) seems to debunk any notion claiming the Scriptures* are necessary for salvation, much less the idea of the Scriptures needing to be perfect: John 5:39-40 NET " You study the scriptures thoroughly because you think in them you possess eternal life, and it is these same scriptures that testify about me, but you are not willing to come to me so that you may have life." Jesus Himself was against thinking the Scriptures were necessary for eternal life- only in Him is eternal life! However, He also makes mention that the Scriptures do testify of Him. Hasn't He said something similar before? Indeed, John 5:36-37 NET "But I have a testimony greater than that from John. For the deeds that the Father has assigned me to complete – the deeds I am now doing – testify about me that the Father has sent me. And the Father who sent me has himself testified about me." And again in John 8:18 NET "I testify about myself and the Father who sent me testifies about me.” And once more in John 10:25 NET "...The deeds I do in my Father’s name testify about me."

So now we see that the Bible is certainly not the only thing that testifies about Jesus; Jesus has His Father, His deeds/works/miracles, and even Himself that testify of Him. In light of these many witnesses Jesus has, how can anyone say we need the Bible (much less a perfect one) to know about and understand God? Is not God Himself, the one who inspired the Bible in the first place, an even greater witness than that which He inspired?

This begs the question though: how does God testify of Himself and make Himself known to people if there's no Bible to do it with? First of all, He could do it the same way He did it with the other people in the Bible who didn't have the Bible. Secondly, there is yet another witness that testifies of Jesus I didn't mention before: John 15:26 NET "When the Advocate [or Helper, or Comforter] comes, whom I will send you from the Father – the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father – he will testify about me," (brackets mine). The Holy Spirit is Jesus's greatest testifier. He isn't words written in a book- He is God, living in us, and simply showing love to everyone around Him. What greater witness than God plainly showing His love to other people who don't know about Him through those who do know Him? The Bible can't do that, even if it's more perfect than humankind can comprehend. The Bible cannot love. It can only be sat there and read. You give someone a Bible, no matter what translation (and I know this from a friend's personal experience, and the translation chosen was the KJV), and they could read it all the way through, admiring the wisdom, beauty, and stories, yet still feel no need to believe any of it.

In fact, it is silly to give an atheist or agnostic or someone of any religion the Bible and argue that Christianity is true because of something the Bible says- they have not accepted the Christian Bible is Scripture, so if one somehow won over them by using the Bible, it will have required much manipulation of thoughts and emotions. If one is going to argue for Christianity using only Scriptures, they will fail, because they are arguing the point he must first prove. However, loving someone with the same love God has through the Holy Spirit, will get one much further. God's love is perfect and never ends, and will (whether sooner or later) cause the recipient to want to return the love. This is why Jesus died in the first place- an act of perfect love, in order to get perfect love in return.

We don't need to translate Scriptures into other languages; we don't need to find a culture without a written language, invent one for them, then translate the Scriptures into their newly written language; we certainly don't need to teach people English so they can read the KJV. The only absolute necessity for salvation, spiritual growth, and knowledge of God, His ways, and His love is His love, shown through us via His Spirit. After all, it wasn't as if the Apostles went out handing pocket-sized Bibles- they didn't use any Bible, yet thousands every day heard the message and believed. We use the Bible all the time, and one doesn't hear about such phenomenons nowadays. Has the Bible replaced the Holy Spirit?

-J-Lindo

*Note: I use "Scripture" and "Bible" interchangeably.

Had a Birthday, More Musings

It's been forever since I last posted- I hate that I haven't posted as much as I would've liked. I just kinda forgot about this D:

Anyways, as said in the title, I just had a birthday on December 2. I'm 18, hooray! I got a Nintendo (NES) for my birthday. It's really awesome. Really really awesome. For those who are awesome enough to wonder, no, I haven't beaten Super Mario Bros... yet! The farthest I've gotten is World 7-4, so I hope to accomplish that soon. I also got sunglasses with a hidden camera and microphone. It takes 640x480 video (with audio) and 3264x2448 photos. Obviously, it's incredible. I can't wait to record my sister's funny moments with it.

Shoot.... There was something I really really really wanted to blog about, but I've completely forgotten what it was. I'll make another post later with what I wanna talk about. Until then, my friends!

-J-Lindo

Hanged Man's Curse

...Yes, I stole the title from Frank Peretti's Hangman's Curse :) Oddly enough, I never read it- only watched the movie. I'll have to read the book. I did, however, read the sequel, Nightmare Academy.

Anyways, I found something very interesting about Jesus that I think is pretty telling. Check this out- Deuteronomy 21:23 (Deut. 21:23 NIV*) says that whoever is hung is cursed by God. The Greek version of Deuteronomy (LXX or Septuagint) says that whoever is hung on a tree is cursed by God, as shown by Paul in Galatians 3:13 (Gal. 3:13 RSV) (although it seems some translations render it as "pole" rather than tree. I doubt it makes a difference, though, since one could argue that the cross had a pole-like structure).

And Paul makes the point clear in that same verse that I'm making- Jesus got cursed and became a curse for the sake of saving mankind. He got hung on a tree (or pole) that was the cross. And since whoever's hung like that is cursed by God, boom. And certainly the curse He got was bigger than any other- the weight of the sin of the world on His shoulders. Thankfully, though, He was able to take it. And, obviously, it's left Him scarred for the rest of His life. Though it seems He thought it was worth it, as found in Hebrews 12:2 (Heb. 12:2 NKJV). He went through it because He could see the joy He was gonna be getting from it. And I have a theory as to what this joy was coming from.

While reading the NET Bible (which I like because of its overload of footnotes), I found this footnote at Galatians 5:22 (Gal. 5:22 NLT): "Another way to punctuate this is 'love' followed by a colon (love: joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control). It is thus possible to read the eight characteristics following 'love' as defining love." Basically, it's possible that rather than there being 9 fruits of the Spirit, there is but one, with 8 main characteristics that're found from it, and the one fruit is love. And check it out- the first characteristic listed is joy. So, if this alternate reading is accurate, joy is a result of love.

Even if one doesn't think this rendering is correct, I doubt one can really separate love from joy. When one loves another and they see eachother, what happens inside? No doubt joy, along with the other 7 as well (heh, I could really make a case for that verse being rendered that way.).

So, why go through with the cross and get Himself scarred for the rest of eternity due to a huge curse that He put onto Himself? What was the reason this joy ahead in time existed? I'm willing to bet it was love.

Now, don't get confused. I'm not talking about "He died on the cross because He loved us." It is true, but I'm talking about, "He died on the cross to get love." It's an interesting thought- the Creator and Designer of everything in existence paid blood to get love.




*For those who don't know, I have a plugin that turns Bible references into links that make the verse(s) pop up in a little box when you hover your cursor over it. The default translation is KJV, but for those who prefer a more modern version, I put in parentheses the same reference with a different translation specified.

Debate or No Debate? That Is the Question

Status or picture is posted. A comment is made. A conversation is started. Soon, it becomes a full-blown debate, mostly just becoming an argument. And both sides are trying to convince the other that they are right. The problem is, when's the last time that actually worked?

Normally, it just provides with one or both with anger, even resentment. Not necessarily permanent, though that can happen.

What about Jesus though? He argued too.

Only when He had a bit of wisdom that would shut the people who wanted to argue up. Unless He had a bit of wisdom to share that genuinely left the Sadducees and Pharisees speechless, He hardly said a word to them when they wanted to argue.

Another look at it would be when Jesus stayed with people who weren't exactly known for being totally devoted to Judaism, like Zacchaeus (the short guy who climbed a tree to see Jesus- you probably sing a song about him in Sunday school). When Jesus talked to him (or anyone He was with), He didn't argue or debate at all. In fact, He never gave them any reason to be angry or frustrated with Him.

Now, there may be a right way to argue and debate, but I would think it's better to just steer clear from it. All I really see people doing, even in theological arguments, is like slap, slap back, slap again, slap back again, and more and more anger or frustration building up as it goes on. And, when one returns evil for evil in a tennis ball-like fashion, it just compiles and grows more and more.

I would imagine if Christians stopped trying to make a case for Christianity to every non-Christian they came across and to every Christian who doesn't believe exactly the same way, Christians would be more unified and have a better reputation. (Now don't start getting over-spiritual and say we shouldn't care about the Christian reputation- if someone has a rep for being a liar, are you liable to trust that person? Likewise, if a religion has a rep for nonstop arguing with everyone who disagrees with you and causing hate, fights, and wars, are people going to want to be part of it? Not if they truly want peace and love.) Rather than bouncing the ball back, get the person to slap on the other cheek as well. When person A tries to argue and person B avoids the argument entirely and refuses to let frustration or anger make him slap person A back, person A loses the reason to even argue with B. If one person will not fight or argue, the other person becomes disarmed. And that is probably the best time to share a bit of wisdom God would lay on one's heart, if He does (don't think He will every time- He won't. Not every time.)

The biggest problem is lack of love. I mean, I imagine there's some love between friends and family and others even when arguing, but that love tends to be at least partially forgotten when attacking with arguments. If Christians would love one another rather than stand proudly on their rock of knowledge and gun down those who would oppose them, more people might would be drawn to it. Otherwise, we get hatred, fights, and wars (if you don't believe me, look through history- a lot of wars were fought over religious beliefs- many being Christian ones. The non-Christians aren't wrong when they say that Christianity has caused many wars. While it is not necessarily Christianity that does it, it is the pride of believing one's self to be right and others wrong about whatever issues that causes wars.)

So, in closing, if anyone at all reads this and is a Christian, start loving. If you already do so, continue in His love. Resist the temptation to fight back, and see what a difference it makes in people's opinion of you.

As time goes on and you grow closer to God in love, the more His nature becomes your own, the more natural it will become for you to resist that which He wouldn't say to do. So again, the emphasis is on unconditional love. Show it, and people will be drawn. It's a proven fact- when God showed His full love for the world on the cross, many were drawn.

J-Lindo

God Punishing Prodigal Children?

This belief that God will punish His children who sin is a very traditional belief. What kind of father doesn't punish His child? An unloving one, of course.

Hey, Pirates Who Don't Do Anything, how much truth is there in that?

Larry: Nothin'.
Mr. Lunt: Zilch.
Larry: Nada.

Thank you.

So let's think for a bit- why not punish the sinner for what they've done? After all, they're a Christian yet they've defied God! That ought to be enough for punishment.

Absolutely correct. The problem is, the people who usually make that claim forget the second part: Jesus took all the punishment for the sins of the whole world.

But what about consequences? Are you saying that we can go sin without consequences?

~facepalms~ People, there is a difference between punishment and consequence. Consequence is synonymous with effect; the consequence is the effect resulting from a cause. The consequence, or effect, is what is brought onto the person by their own self. Punishment is brought onto the person by someone in authority (in this case, God). Consequences do happen, like a girl getting pregnant from sex that shouldn't have happened. This happens not by God's doing, but the person's own.

Now there may be more arguments to counter the idea of no punishment, but I believe the Bible itself has the key to lay them all to rest. Take a look in Luke 15:11-24 (Luke 15:11-24 YLT*). It's the parable of the prodigal son; I'm sure you all know this story. The kid tells his dad he wants his inheritance, the dad gives it to him, he goes and spends it all partying and being an idiot, he ends up broke and starving and feeding pigs, he goes back home humbled, and his dad welcomes him home with a ring, robe, shoes, and a party.

Here's how I look at it. The father is God, and the kid is a Christian. The kid (Christian) decides he wants to go out and sin. So the father (God) willingly lets him go (for God respects the human will; He doesn't force Himself onto anyone). The kid (Christian) goes and spends all his inheritance on Lord knows what. Luke 15:13 (Luke 15:13 RSV) says he wasted it. I wouldn't be surprised if this guy was doing just terrible, ungodly things like hooking up with girls and prostitutes (which is actually confirmed in verse 30), having nightly drunken sprees, rubbing his wealth in poor people's faces, etc. (Keep in mind what you'd think of a pastor or someone in today's world who's supposed to be a Christian but acts like this.) Then there's a famine and the guy goes broke (is that a punishment or consequence? Give you a hint: who brought the state of being broke on him- his father or himself?). He gets so desperate that he takes a job feeding pigs, and is so desperate for food he wishes he could eat whatever the pigs are eating (punishment or consequence? So far, the answer to both looks like consequence. He brought it all on himself.) The son (Christian) finally decides to go back to his father (God), but says he will tell his father that he is no longer worthy of being called His son and will be willing to work as a servant. He was preparing to be punished! You think you're being punished severely with a lecture and a whip? At least you get to keep the family name. This one was thinking he would be denounced as even his father's own son. I doubt that's happened to many. He then trods off back home. When the son (Christian) comes back, however, the father (God) sees him from a distance and runs as fast as his legs will carry him towards His son. But is this father (God) running to punish the son (Christian)? Actually, it says He had compassion, gave him a bear hug, and kissed him. The father wasn't mad at all! He was overjoyed when His kid finally came back! The son tried to say to his father that he will be more than willing to work as a hired servant without being recognized as a son. He agrees to whatever punishment his father may have in store for him. The father (God), instead of lashing out at His son (Christian), telling him how wrong he was to do what he did, punishing him, and denouncing him, yells to his servants to bring out the best robe, a ring, and some shoes. He then orders them to take the fattest calf and kill it for a celebration feast and party.

I'm sure you noticed that the father did absolutely nothing to punish His son. Why the heck didn't He? He knew the son had learned his lesson, for one. Otherwise, he wouldn't have come back! In fact, He even says so in Luke 15:24, 27, and 32 (Luke 15:24 NIV, Luke 15:27 NIV, Luke 15:32 NIV). He says the reason there's gonna be a party is because the son, for this, was dead, but now is alive again. The son was lost, but now he's been found. He's come back home safe and sound. What are God's thoughts centered on? The kid is back!
Of course, there's other Christians, represented by the older brother later on. He hears the music and dancing at the party and asks what's going on. And, like most Christians, is shocked to hear that his dad is not punishing the younger brother at all, but celebrating his return. He talks to his father, and points out how well he's behaved the entire time, yet never got a party for himself. Then, possibly attempting to make the father look like a hypocrite, points out that the other son spent his father's life savings on prostitutes, yet gets a full party and the fattest calf gets killed for a feast for him. I do think he represents the Christians who think the other Christians who sin ought to be punished for what they've done. This is done out of a lack of love for the other brother. Had he loved his little brother with the same unconditional love that the father did, he would have ran alongside his father when He ran to greet His son who'd finally returned. But alas, he acts rather in jealousy and anger than love. After the inquiry, the father says they are partying because there is a good reason- the son, who'd gone away and been an idiot, has come to his senses and has returned. He was dead, and is now alive again; he was lost, but is now found.

With this story, told by Jesus (and therefore, God) Himself, I don't see how anyone could believe God punishes His children who disobey Him. Rather, like in the parable, He waits patiently until His child comes back home, ready to greet him/her with open arms and a compassionate, loving heart. This kind of love relationship between man and God was enabled when Jesus took the punishment we deserved on His cross. Now that the punishment has been inflicted, there is no need for it. Only love. That's what I've discovered about God recently more than ever- nothing His children can do will ever make Him run to the returning child with a whip and chains and a long lecture about how wrong they were. And, as I have implied (or rather, as Jesus Himself replied), it is the ones with no love in their hearts that wish to see the wrongdoers punished. Remember the older brother who was whining about the younger one going out and being an idiot and still gets a party? Had he had the love and heart for his brother as his father had for him, he would have come right alongside his father when running to meet the returning son.

Until next time,

J-Lindo


*I put the reference a second time in parentheses with another translation's initials there for people who would rather read a translation easier to read than the KJV, which is the default translation if I do not specify another. If you're on a computer, you'll see what I mean when you hover your cursor over both of them.

Calvinism Thoughts

If any Calvinist dares get mad at me or even thinks I'm stupid for posting my thoughts on this, remember, God is sovereign over every last thing that happens, and has every bit of everything that's happened, is happening, and is going to happen planned out in advance. So God predestined and ordained that I would be doing this in the first place.
Then again, He also predestined whether or not you would be mad or think me stupid for this as well, right? ;)

Anyways, just a few thoughts. My Calvinist friend said something about human responsibility (ie if God has predestined who's going to be saved and who isn't, why bother preaching the Gospel? Because He told us to.). Which is weird, because "responsibility" by definition requires free will because when one has a responsibility, one can choose to do or not do what they are responsible to do.

The thing that really caught my attention was this website explaining predestination http://www.orlutheran.com/html/trelect.html. He's pretty thorough, I think. Though it looks like he believes in free will with everything except getting saved. Odd for a Calvinist, who typically believes in no free will whatsoever due to God preordaining everything that's ever going to happen.

He's pretty straightforward and explains everything well, except for the very last parts.

Predestination is intended to be a teaching of the greatest comfort for Christians - but only for Christians. Not predestination, but "the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" is to be preached to the lost. It is most foolish to talk to non-Christians about predestination, for this teaching is not intended for them. Rather, unbelievers should be pointed to "Jesus Christ and Him crucified," to the Gospel that says that God offers reconciliation, forgiveness, and eternal life, to everyone who believes, regardless of their social status, race, sex, or past life (See John 3:16; 2 Corinthians 5:19; 1 John 2:1-2; Galatians 3:27). "He died for all" (2 Co. 5:15) is the message the non-believing world needs to hear.


To be honest, I find that just a tad bit hypocritical. Believe that God is only going to save some people that He's already chosen beforehand, yet teach non-Christians that Christ died for all? Hide the doctrine of predestination, then reveal it when they're ready? Say, "God died for all people in every nation, His blood can save you today," then, "God only died for a certain group of people, of which you are lucky enough to be a part of. I only told you He died for all so that you would get saved."

Why not tell non-Christians that God only died for those He'd already chosen? I believe it ruins people's want of salvation. When a non-Christian hears God only died for the elect, he can very easily say, "I'm not part of the elect; I am not going to be saved." And the Calvinist is stuck there because obviously God preordained those people to say that. If people started hearing that, much fewer would get saved, I think. And those who would, being young Christians, probably would not go around telling other people about it because hey, if other people are gonna get saved, He's already predestined them to, so nothing I do or don't do can alter His plans! So I think Calvinists want people saved, but know their doctrine is too dangerous for a non-believer to hear, otherwise Christianity would likely fall.

Though to be honest, my biggest problem with Calvinism is that it totally rips love out of the equation. Oh, it tries to keep it in there by saying God choose who He choose out of love. But the problem is, I believe God created mankind so He could have someone to love Him back. Calvinism teaches God created us solely for His glory. But He's got innumerable angels doing that already. I believe God wanted love, not glory. Sure, He gets glory out of it, but it wasn't the main purpose. Hebrews 12:2 says that Jesus endured the cross for the joy that was set before Him. What gave Him joy? Knowing He'd get more glory, or knowing that because of what He'd done, He would be able to finally have a bride to love Him? Here's what I think could answer the question: do you find joy in being glorified or being loved? I believe it would come from being loved, and I'm willing to bet the same answer will go for God.
Calvinists (for the most part) claim humans have no free will. If we don't, and we truly have no choice about whether or not we're going to be saved, then we can't really be loving God back. Love implies a choice to either love or not love. Love is never forced. This is also tried to be covered up, by saying we will love Him when we do get saved, but if He decided we will, is it really love?
Again, I ask you: Would you rather your spouse be a robot who loves you but has no choice to do otherwise, or have one who loves you even though they have the choice not to? I think anyone would choose the ladder. Why? Because it's more real that way.

I could be all wrong, but that's how I see it.

One last food for thought: Couldn't Calvinism be refuted entirely if one could prove God doesn't actually know the future? ;)
(Not to say God can't make extremely educated guesses or can't know whether His prophecies will come true or not. His prophecies will come true because those are special events that He wishes to happen and will happen because His will is dominant and can override anyone else's.)


J-Lindo

Everything Changes... Not!

Heard a little quote somewhere on this vast internet thats simply put as, "Everything changes."

Is this true? I'm sure people have plenty of arguments for why or why not it is. But the only logical conclusion can be is that it is a false statement. And the argument is very simple. The statement "Everything changes" is given as an unchanging statement, and any argument supporting it is given as an unchanging argument. The statement itself and any argument made to support it ultimately defeats it. Therefore, there are some things in the world that do not change.

As a Christian, I believe God's nature never changes. As a person with reason, I believe the statement "Not everything changes" is unchanging.

Y'know, "everything changes" sounds like something out of a movie. Did it come from some movie outta Hollywood?

Update 06/02/2012: That movie Ratatouille!!! One of the main moral points came out in a talk with Remy and his dad, and Remy said, "Change is nature, dad! And it starts when we decide." What's wrong with it? If it's true, shouldn't the two things he said naturally change (if change is nature)? Oh wait, we can't say that in the movie- it'd defeat the purpose!

People, think about what you put on your statuses! I will comment on them to point out their stupidity and write a blog about it. :D

Not filled with much to chew on, but wanted to write something for fun. Until next time,

J-Lindo