2 Timothy Chapter 3 verse 16 starts by saying that “all Scripture is God-breathed,” or inspired and most Christians would at least give lip-service to that. If that is the case then why do many believers underline or highlight verses in their Bibles, often at the behest of preachers who will insist that members of their congregations must underline this or that verse? Are we saying that we regard some portions of Scripture as being more inspired than others. Inadvertently that might be the case. I hasten to add that I have heard many fine and solid preachers of the Word tell their listeners to do the above and this is not meant as criticism of any one individual. The question we need to ask ourselves is “Do I regard some of Scripture as being more inspired than others?”
Imagine a diagram or graph, along the base is written the names of the various books of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and on the vertical axis the percentage to which we believe the Word of God to be inspired. In theory there should be a straight line at a hundred per cent from one side to the other. But in reality is this the case? I think not. If I am honest then I have to admit that some passages of Scripture leave me rather cold. We can try and argue that verses that excite us are 200 per cent inspired, but surely either a verse of Scripture is inspired or it is not. In arguing that some verses are more inspired, inevitably we are at the same time arguing that some verses are less inspired.
Going back to our imaginary diagram; the Sadducees only believed that the first five books of the Bible (the Pentateuch) were inspired so the diagram for them would be a straight line for the first five books then steeply falling towards zero. The Pharisees believed what is the whole of the Old Testament to be Scripture. In theory the diagram for them would be straight until the New Testament was reached. After Paul’s arrest in Jerusalem he was able to cause division between the two factions largely because of their attitudes to what parts of Scripture were inspired or not. Today when Christians from different strands of Christianity discuss matters they often find themselves talking at cross purposes. How much of this is because we think that Scripture that agrees with our theology is more inspired than that which might challenge it? To simplify matters imagine the discussion between an Orthodox Jew and an Evangelical Christian. Both use verses as if they were playing a card game, hoping that each card they play will win the trick. The Orthodox Jew not regarding the New Testament as Scripture will find the Evangelical’s favourite quotes from either Jesus or Paul as being invalid. Likewise, the Evangelical finds that the Orthodox Jew’s quoting of the Torah as being “Old Covenant,” that has been superceeded by the “New.” The problem being that it is if each other does not recognise the suit which they have called trumps, leading to increasing frustration.
If we do not accept the first part of the verse then it is no use for “teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.” Jesus when arguing with the Sadducees had to quote from the Torah to contradict their unbelief in the concept of resurrection when said “I am the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob” thus proving the Lord was the God of the living and not the dead.
David Rose, 2015.
-
Recent Posts
Archives
- April 2026
- July 2025
- November 2024
- March 2024
- June 2022
- May 2022
- February 2022
- April 2021
- February 2021
- May 2020
- February 2020
- December 2019
- September 2019
- June 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
Categories
Meta



Secular State versus Islamic State.
Events of the past week in France have thrown up many questions. A few weeks ago we in the West were obsessing about Christmas gifts and the commercial aspects of Christmas. Traditionally the origin of giving gifts at Christmas time is attributed to St Nicholas who lived in what is now Turkey. The story goes that a Christian father had got himself into debt and in order to pay it off he had to sell his daughters into slavery. When the first one was due to be sold a large sum of money appeared in the house during the previous night. It was sufficiently large that the father instead of selling her he had enough to provide a dowry for his daughter to get married. The same happened when the second daughter was due to be sold. When the third daughter was due to be sold the father hid himself to as to see who was the mysterious benefactor was and caught St Nicholas lowering the money down the chimney. It is ironic that not that far from where this happened in the last year Christian women have faced being sold as slaves by the forces of the “Islamic State.”
The various acts of violence that took place in France have been rightly condemned. The problem the Christians face is that if we stand in solidarity with the French Government and people then we are in danger of saying that secularism is a good thing (France being officially a secular country). This makes it difficult to oppose secularists in our own countries who often use innocuous sounding measures to disguise their ultimately immoral aims. Of course they invariably deny that their aims are immoral it is just that the morality of the Bible is outdated. “Did God really say . . ?” is how Satan questioned the authority of God in the Garden of Eden and it has worked so well for him over the centuries that he has no reason to change his tactics. But on the other hand if we do not appear to stand with them then we could be accused of tacitly approving the violence.
People are always attacking the Bible and the Judeo-Christian ethic today, but they always have. In Psalm 2 written about 3000 years ago states- “Why do the nations conspire and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers gather together against the Lord and against his Anointed One. ‘Let us break their chains,’ they say, ‘and throw off their fetters.'” The publication “Charlie Hebdo” mocked Christianity as much as they mocked other religions so why we deplore the murders of its staff and would not condone them we would unwise to be unconditional in standing with their interpretation of freedom of speech. Freedoms in democracies come with responsibilities but those with anarchical tendencies want freedoms without responsibility. So we have to be careful. It is easy for satirists to call others to account but ignore calls for themselves to be called to account.
It is very easy to say that the Bible has been distorted, while its text may not have been its interpretation is continually being distorted in one way or another. Jesus said that the Pharisees nullified it by their tradition. One of the Ten Commandments is that “You shall do no murder.” If you say that this has been distorted what did it originally say? You shall commit murder? When we claim that theology needs to evolve to account for the modern way of life, it raises a lot of problems. True, our neighbour may not have an ox to covet but that does not mean that covetousness is not a problem today. The advertising industry is based on the hope that we will covet the products being advertised. The Islamic religion claims that the Koran was necessary because the Bible has been corrupted and effectively needed to be replaced. Just because bad Christians set a poor example this does not Scripture itself has been corrupted. Though as often been said – you are the only Bible they will ever read. So it is easy to see where the confusion has arisen.
Though one of the things I find puzzling about Islam is why they object to images portraying their prophet. They do not claim him as God so why is that seen as blasphemy regardless of subject matter?
Now it easy to see those who come against the west armed with AK47s and bombs as our enemies but what about those who come against us subtly by questioning the basis of morality like the satirists of Charlie Hebdo could they not do greater damage in the long run than terrorists. Come to think of it how did the word terrorist first arise, it was in the wake of the French Revolution when power fell into hands of the hard-line Jacobins who banned Christianity and imposed their diktats by the use of the guillotine in what became known as the “Reign of Terror,” those who supported the slaughter were the first people to be called “Terrorists.” The people of France seem to have forgotten this. Secularism can be equally as dangerous as Islamic fundamentalism we have to be wary that it is kept in check.
David Rose 2015.