The other day, I commented on something to my wife about, “The swirling down of Christianity.” By this, I’m referring to the little whirlpool in your sink as the water goes down the drain.
Many Christians agree the big problem with Christianity in the times of Martin Luther was the tendency to use allegorical Biblical interpretation. “Well, when the Bible talks about moving the stone, it means one’s cares and troubles.”
Today, the word “allegory” has been replaced with “spiritual”, but it’s the same thing. You see, spiritually, when the Bible talks about moving the stone, it means one’s cares and troubles.
And everyone bats their eyes and sighs, pleased with the allegorical interpretation.
When the Bible says the stone was moved, it really means there was a big, big round carved stone that was in front of the tomb in the Garden. And it means the stone was moved… out of the way. Jesus Christ didn’t need it moved – we needed it moved so that we could see this.
The Bible means what it says. The Bible means what it says. The Bible means what it says.
I’ve got quote upon quote upon quote from well meaning Christian authors who constantly are engaging in Neo-Barthianism (see yesterday). What astounds me is that although Charles Ryrie decries Neo-Barthianism – he has been affected GREATLY by them due to his unconscious refusal to obey Biblical mandates of separationism. Paul tells us don’t even LISTEN to a heretic – and Neo-Barthianism is most definitely a damnable heresy – lest their words eat as does a canker.
It’s terrible, I tell you.
Barthians charge evangelicals with holding a dictation view of inspiration. The biblical writers were typewriters on which God typed His message.” Charles Ryrie
Ryrie tries unsuccessfully to refute this charge, which he does not believe in. Strange, because this is exactly what I and MANY fundamentalists exactly DO believe in! It’s a doctrine called “mechanical inspiration.” And many great Biblical teachers have taught exactly this.
Yet Ryrie, to my surprise, tries to foster the Barthian belief that the writers of the Bible had some choice in the tone of the Scriptures.. but not the words.
I don’t think Mr. Ryrie has stopped to consider how contradictory that is? If every letter of the Bible is inspired, then this means that the very words are inspired. I mean, if the letters are inspired – and he has good arguments to contend this – then this means God had a direct hand in choosing the letters. You can’t take Theta epsilon omicron Sigma and have it mean anything other than Theos, or God. If God chose the letters, then God chose the words.
We’ve had “bible teachers” who try to tell us that praying is a work, fasting is a work, reading your Bible is a work – so don’t do any of that. We’ve had “Bible teachers” try to tell us that since we’re living in this world, to be effective at spreading the gospel, we should live like the world but smile all the time, and people will think we’re really happy, and they’ll ask us why we’re so happy, and we can etc.
Listen, if you walk around living like everyone else and smiling all the time, people are going to think you need medication.
I have a lot of respect for Mr. Ryrie, but he’s been affected by the liberalism he correctly fights, because he will not separate from error.
Now, to make demands on you. Separate from error. Don’t even listen to their teachers, because their words will eat as does a canker.