![[Decrease font size]](http://www.rcmintl.org/resources/font-dec.gif "Decrease font size")
![[Increase font size]](http://www.rcmintl.org/resources/font-inc.gif "Increase font size")
The Authority [or lack thereof] of the Scriptures
The Church is debating amongst itself. We differ over so many points that it is not fair to start at any of them to describe what is going on in the body of Christ. In this section, we want to address one particular issue that has become of chief importance to us: what is the authority of the scriptures? Are they infallible, inerrant, and fully inspired, as so many "fundamentalists" claim? And, who has the authority to interpret the scriptures? Denominations fight over these questions back and forth. They attempt to answer them from different perspectives; however, none of their solutions seem to settle the debate. Many Christians are fine with saying, "You believe what you believe, and I'll believe what I'll believe!" But that only undergirds disunity not the unity of the faith stipulated in Ephesians 4:13. Scripture states "Be of the same mind one toward another. Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own conceits" (Romans 12:16). In this situation, we need a fresh word from God. We do not need one person or another's opinion. We need God's revelation of what his book is for, in order to understand what exactly is going on here. One of the major cries of our generation is against Enlightenment thinking, or Modernism. People believed that we could accurately describe things by simply using reason and conclude with unshakeable "objective" (not personal) perspectives. The chief concern of Modernism was "proof," but the cry of today is that there can be no "proof." Post-modernism suggests that we think about the world differently, that we believe we can create personal realities; that we recognize that, since all of these realities exist in the world, our perspective should not and cannot extend beyond ourselves. Everything we attempt to describe must be wrong in some way. Nobody knows what the truth is. All we have is personal truth. We are only able to describe the parts of the truth. Of course, these ideas are met with debate but they remain a source of influence for our thinking. What we fail to realize is that this way of thinking is nothing more than a natural progression of human logic. Christians, because of our desires to adhere to human intellectualism, end up dealing with both sides of the argument and reject our source of authority, accepting another. Human logic, in this case, is our authority. In other words, what we can see, touch, taste, and feel, know through our senses, that is what we believe and almost nothing else. Truth derived from the senses alone, personal truth, never allows us to be one people. We will always be divided and debating because many of us see the world differently from other folks.
As these debates continue, Christians have embraced a different god and replaced our God with him. This is a Deistic God. Deism purports that God created the world and then took a leave of absence. Christianity assumes that God is and has been intimate with the world he created. As for Deism, it is almost as if its God has no real intention of involving himself with the things he created. The Deist god's relationship to the world is like humankind's relationship to toxic waste; it cannot be made without us, but after it is made, we keep our distance from it. Contrariwise, Christianity's God wants to involve himself in the affairs of men, he showed himself as man, as Jesus Christ. They are not the same God, but for some reason Christians treat their God as if he is the god of Deism. Most people fail to acknowledge God's existence. Some would argue that this is errant data; they would tell us that most people believe in God. The Christian, much less the average person, however, fails to acknowledge (vocally) God on a daily basis. People rarely even think of God on a daily basis. Generally, people may speak or think of God on their "holy day," but this may not even occur as much as we think it does. Christians are in a constant state of debate about almost everything because of our lack of belief in God. God is the only one who can adjudicate our debates; however, many Christians do not appeal to God. We appeal to former theologians (Wesley, Calvin, Luther, etc.), pastors, and other things, but not to God. The reason is that we do not really want an answer, we just want to debate; thereby having ultimate authority over the issue. There are theologians and others debating about the meaning of scripture and the origin of certain doctrines who haven't at least tried to ask God about the validity of their doctrines or beliefs. They continue to speculate through natural means, instead of saying, "Hey, I don't have the answers; let me ask God." It is this problem that we want to point out in this book. We have so many people who talk about God but do not have a relationship with God. Moreover, it is these people who we trust to get our data about God. This is a problem. What we offer here is how we believe the Lord would handle this situation. Who has the authority to end the debate? We believe God himself.
To begin this discussion, we want to offer you the structure through which we will be addressing such a mountainous question. We first note who has the power (the right) to interpret scripture. This is important because it helps us actually see what scripture is in the first place. Second, we demonstrate what that authority defined by scripture really is and how it should look for the church. This will then allow us to ascertain the status of the scripture—whether it truly represents a book of "Timeless Truths," "A Book of Cultural Codes of Conduct," or "The Word of God." Before we get into all of that, we must first define what we mean by authority. Merriam-Webster indicates that it is the "power [right] to influence or command thought, opinion, or behavior." So the questions are what kind of power to influence should the Bible have in our lives and, who has the influence over the way we should interpret this book we call the Bible? Most people, especially scholars, conclude that the Bible itself should have no real authority over us. Many believe, like the Roman Church, that scripture derives its authority from the church, and the church then has the power over scripture. We must ask ourselves, "Is this good enough?" With all of the errors, missing texts, and plain old confusion in interpretation, will this solution do? Most people would say yes! We, however, want to offer another point of view. We begin with who has the authority to interpret the Bible.
By Who's Authority?
There are there are two types of people that attempt to interpret the Bible out in the open: prophets and false prophets. At first glance, this may seem a little too extreme. Why do they have to be these? It is extreme, for the simple fact that when any person makes a claim about the Bible they are speaking of the claims within the Bible. They are either affirming or denying the text of scripture. Those who lead others to a higher acknowledgment of God, in the scriptures, are affirmers of the scriptures. Those who lead others away from God usually deny the scriptures and God himself. These are prophets and false prophets respectively. Today, we have many people making claims from one degree to the other about the status of the scripture and God. Some may affirm the Bible but speak of a different God than the Bible. Others may speak of the God of the Bible but repudiate the Bible. To continue this discussion we want to go a bit deeper. In order to understand the prophets and false prophets, we must first begin with an understanding of Jesus, who headlines much of what prophets and false prophets discuss when they talk about scripture. If we can understand Jesus and what they say about him, we can understand what they believe about their power to interpret the scriptures and thus, who are the prophets and false prophets.
Jesus, the Prophets, and the False Prophets
Who is Jesus? This is a question that humanity has been trying to answer for centuries. There are whole movements, disciplines, study groups, and all sorts of institutions concerned with this question. There is even an academic enterprise called Jesus Studies, specifically focused on determining who is this guy actually. Most people involved in the Jesus quest are trying to determine who this guy is to make or break the current civilization. Many people want to find out who Jesus is to determine what their agendas should be. They fall in the category of folks who desire to make movements off of Jesus. He becomes a figurehead for whatever political cause they want to be involved in, whether it is Jesus the Civil Rights Activist or Jesus the Pro-Lifer. On the other hand, there are many people involved in the search for Jesus because they want to destroy Christian faith and quasi-Christian society. You will note the very recent exposé on The Lost Tomb of Jesus, a documentary directed by Simcha Jacobovici (Discovery Channel), as well as the uproar surrounding Dan Brown's book, The Da Vinci Code. Both of these pieces were used to change the societal landscape, promoting an air of skepticism about Jesus. Most notable and most involved in this particular expedition, for finding out who Jesus was and is, is the Church and Academia—the "Pharisees." For the past three hundred years, at least within Western Society, there has been the rise of critical scholarship, which has attempted to offer a view of who they think Jesus is. Critical scholarship is more commonly known as biblical criticism which is an umbrella term covering various techniques for applying literary historical-critical methods in analyzing and studying the Bible and its textual content. According to Academia, the word "criticism" is not to be taken in the negative sense of attempting to denigrate the Bible; although this motive is found in its history. Technically, biblical criticism simply refers to the scholarly approach of studying, evaluating and critically assessing the Bible as literature in order to understand it better. These approaches include historical criticism, source criticism, form criticism, tradition criticism, redaction criticism, textual criticism, statistical criticism, literary criticism, and some more liberal approaches like sociocultural criticism, ideological criticism, feminist criticism, liberation criticism, minority criticism, queer criticism, and postcolonial criticism. Fernando Segovia, a biblical scholar, states, "Biblical criticism now pursued in full the study of the Bible 'in societies and cultures'—in the world of learning as well as in all cultural appeals to it and renditions of it."34
Of course, the church, the institution believing to be directly a part of the lineage of Jesus, has offered their view of who Jesus was and is, as have many in Academia. The two different institutions have fueled the distinction that has become known as the "Jesus of history and the Christ of faith." Critical scholars (those in Academia) claim to have a foothold on the Jesus of history while arguing that the church has the Christ of faith. The church does not put up much of a fight against this notion. It seems some churches have agreed to disagree. Many other churches do not disagree. Like skeptics mentioned above (Dan Brown and others), they attempt to "debunk" Christian doctrine by offering the "real" historical basis for Christ and what he "actually said." Much of the Church, especially Liberal Protestants, buys into what critical history offers us on Jesus. Books like John Shelby Spong's Resurrection: Myth or Reality? (he concludes myth) are representative of this Liberal Protestant way of thinking. Why are these people so concerned with Jesus? For some reason, people know that if we get Jesus right or wrong, that we can alter the course of the world. Within Jesus rests so much potential to change the world. If Jesus and the Bible are true, there is no greater hope for the world. If the book about him is wrong, then there are billions of people who are simply deluded and trillions who have been over the centuries.
Who has the right or power to say who Jesus is, and equally, what the Bible is about? Ultimately, "evidence" should support whosoever has the authority. Evidence, as defined by Merriam-Webster, is an outward sign or indication of proof. Those who (whether people or concepts) hold authority we follow. They have authority because all of the evidence—all that we consider evidence—points to the claim that they should have authority. This process happens when they make a claim to authority and they provide suitable warrant for their claim. We need to ask ourselves, who should we trust for these answers to who Jesus is and what the Bible is?
Knowledge and Faith
Now we must take a bit of a detour, and offer some suggestions for how we should think about this discussion. Knowledge is something that can be attained from the internal and external facets of life. Most often, we gain our information from the external. Since humanity lives in a world that has a subject (us) and object (something else) split, where there is acknowledgement that our thoughts do not make up what is real but there is an independent reality, we must oftentimes speak of the world in relative terms. In other words, what we imagine is not always what is real so we have to talk about the world with some degree of ignorance. There is a gap between our depiction of the world and the actual nature of the world. This is true simply because we are not omniscient. Frequently, our descriptions of the world match our presuppositions (inherent/biased beliefs); however, truth is something that goes beyond bias. When our words and thoughts are completely accurate with what is real, then we can say they are true. Truth is the accurate description (whether in the form of speech or thoughts) of an independent reality. Truth is always true everywhere; it is not relative (see "Private Interpretations"). Getting to the truth is the sticky part. Usually, we attempt to get to the truth by use of evidence; however, we disagree over what qualifies as evidence. This realm of disagreement is where faith comes into play. Faith assumes that we agree to the truth of something without being able to see all the evidence that give it the power to qualify as absolutely true: we believe without initially seeing it. All people, whether scientists, theologians, writers, whomever, use faith to some degree or another (there is a concrete example of this below).
To determine how we are to understand Jesus and the Bible, we must listen to various parties, what they are offering, and if they seem to line up with reality. In other words, when someone tells us something, we must make a decision on whether to believe them or not. This low level, first decision, is faith. We do not know who they are or what they are about; we simply take them up on their offer. This same thing happens when we listen to doctors, lawyers, scholars of all types, and preachers. We take them up and say, "Show me!" One of the major problems with getting at truth is the existence of contradictions. Where there are contradictions in a statement that is supposed to be true, a choice has to be made. If we say, "Show me a three-sided square," then we are speaking of the impossible. All squares have four sides so that means that we must choose whether we want a three-sided shape (a triangle) or we want a square. This absolute works in the world, too. We cannot be doing one thing and the opposite at the same time. A person is unable to drink water out of an empty glass at the same time. Truth is by definition exclusive; the truth would be drinking water out of a glass that has water in it, meaning that the truth excludes the possibility that the glass is completely empty. Wherever there are contradictions, we have to make a decision on whom to believe. Either one party is correct or both parties are incorrect.
Knowledge to Faith
A whole lot of things are involved in our beliefs. For one, we must first trust the source that transmitted the information. In doing that, we then also have to believe that the information transmitted is accurate. Along with that, we have to believe that what we believe, accurate or not, is exactly what was communicated to us or what was supposed to be communicated to us. There is an ongoing dialogue involved in giving and receiving information. The point is that all belief, at its most rudimentary level, is faith: belief is rooted in, at least, an initial presumption of truth. Let us look at an example. Recently a professor made an argument in an essay called The Perimeter of Ignorance. In this essay, he argues that the Intelligent Design (ID) Movement is faulty. They, this particular group of ID scientists, argue that the universe has the unique look of design by an intelligent creator, and is not the product of chance. The former scientist opposed to ID says that the theory is nothing more than "god of the gaps" theory (a belief that wherever there is a hole in scientific reasoning, God did it) and is basically ridiculous and non-scientific. His assertion is that where we have the tools to understand something, we can understand it. He suggests, when addressing many of the findings of physicists over the centuries, "The universe was subjected to the methods and tools of science, and became a demonstrably knowable place." This sounds very good; however, there is a problem here. The same tools that we have used for centuries, our senses, have simply been magnified by modern technology. If we have had issues using our senses all along, who is to say these problems will not be increased by technology? Why all of a sudden do we now have perfect sight, hearing, and so forth? His statement is a statement of faith just as the ID proponents. By arguing that they are wrong and unscientific, being content with knowing so little, he presumes too much. Who is to say the laws of Physics will not be reinterpreted or banished, using the exact same methods he uses now, in hundreds of years? Yet, he is so certain. Why? It is because he believes in what he does. He trusts that his senses are good enough so that many of his observations (which cannot be tested in space) are true because they work out on paper. His ideology is what fuels hypocrisy and ignorance in our world. People are reluctant to admit when they are doing the exact same thing they accuse others of doing. People, usually, cannot see themselves, especially when they are attacking others. Our senses are not enough for coming to the truth; we need faith.
Back to Jesus
There are several people discussing Jesus, thus placing themselves in a prophetic role. Here, we want to discuss our first candidates, scholars. Are we to look to scholars to understand who Jesus is? Do they have the authority to interpret the scriptures and thereby give us the real Jesus? Scholars must be careful because in offering us a Jesus they may be offering one of their own creation, and then making a claim about the scriptures from which they got him,
[The] phrase "the historical" Jesus comes to mean not the Jesus of the Gospels. But allegedly the Jesus behind the Gospels, the Jesus the historian must reconstruct by subjecting the Gospels to ruthlessly objective ... scrutiny. It is essential to realize that this is not just treating the Gospels as historical evidence. It is the application of a methodological skepticism that must test every aspect of the evidence so that what the historian establishes is not believable because the Gospels tell us it is, but because the historian has independently verified it. The result of such work is not one historical Jesus but many.35
But having several Jesuses cannot be bad, can it? Well, let us see, the Jesus of the Gospels demands worship. What of the Jesus of scholars? Does he demand worship? There is too much at stake. In order to answer these questions, it is important to understand where the Jesus of scholars comes from:
It comes not merely from deconstructing the Gospels but also from reconstructing a Jesus who, as a portrayal of who Jesus was, can rival the Jesus of the Gospels. We should be under no illusions ... such a historical Jesus is no less a construction than the Jesus of each of the Gospels.36
People are building Jesuses that rival the Gospels. That means that they are presenting their own Gospels. This is problematic because they are attempting to do something the Gospel writers said they did. They looked at Jesus of Nazareth and witnessed how he fulfilled prophecy and argued that he was what scripture proclaimed was coming. Scholars, in presenting another Jesus, and thereby another Gospel, are therefore presenting another Scripture. Whether it is from historical data or not, it is the same thing. They are explaining what the word of the Lord is (whether God exists for them or not, when you attack a theological position you are making a claim about what is universally and theologically true). It doesn't matter how one attempts to do this; they are considered prophets or false prophets on the basis of this declaration. If a false theological position is being declared by a statement of who Jesus is, then we have a problem. We have a problem because people are creating new religious traditions. The result of it is a form of scriptural iconoclasm: scholars make universal declarations about faith that assumes that the scholar knows absolutely what is going on and everyone else is wrong. Take for example these two quotations below by Albert Sweitzer and Rudolf Bultmann: (Quoted as mentioned)
He [Jesus] comes to us as one unknown37
I do indeed think that we can now know nothing concerning the life and personality of Jesus.37
These quotations—even though they speak of Jesus—are inextricably linked to their belief of scripture. In fact, any statement on Jesus ultimately has its origin in or has an impact on what we consider scriptural or not. One scholar when speaking on how the New Testament is framed spoke of it as, "The fundamental shape of the New Testament jigsaw"38. Why is the New Testament assumed to be a "jigsaw?" This is another result of those reactions to the Bible and Jesus. When things do not initially seem to make sense, we attempt to make sense of them through some other "workable" means. Where does this path lead us? If history is, ultimately, the way to discover who Jesus is and was, as these scholars would have us to believe, then there should be some concrete way of knowing it. They are saying history (a product of their own construction) is the best way to understand Jesus. But we find that the Jesus they offer us has no power. The Jesus they present should help us to understand ourselves and others a whole lot better, but he does not. A Jesus within scholarship should not be contradicting the other Jesuses within scholarship. How would we know how to choose? These men are all making an appeal to history, which means their authority to interpret the Bible and who Jesus is comes from history. Will this suffice? There are contradictions all over the place among people appealing to the authority of history. Let us look at two scholars on the same side of the theological spectrum and what they think of the text that discusses Jesus, particularly the last chapter of John:
The material set out in the previous section indicates that chapter 20 was indeed the intended climax of the book as a whole. It forms the outer frame which matches the prologue, and all the major themes we have traced reach their own culmination in it. Strikingly, none of them, except for last, reappear in chapter 21. It remains, quite clearly, an afterthought ... The reason for its inclusion, around the time when the "beloved disciple" was either facing death or had just died.39
Wright, in his book, is making a claim that this chapter is important but probably not witnessed by the writer, who said he actually saw it happen (John 21:24-25). Instead, he believes this chapter was a "later" addition to the Gospel. Here is a contrary point of view on this particular passage:
A very large majority of modern scholars have supposed that the Gospel originally ended at the end of chapter 20 ... It follows that chapter 21 is a kind of appendix added later.40
The structure of the concluding parts of the Gospel is quite coherent: there is a narrative epilogue [chapter 21] ... framed by a conclusion divided into two carefully designed stages. One reason the conclusion comes in two stages is that they serve to fence off the narrative in ch. 21 from the main narrative of the Gospel, thus indicating its status as an epilogue.41
The Prologue [1:1-18] sketches the prehistory to the Gospel's story, while the Epilogue foresees its posthistory.42
The correspondence between the Prologue and the Epilogue is confirmed by an element of numerical composition ... The Prologue consists of 496 syllables ... it links the Prologue and Epilogue together ... the Epilogue has 496 words.42
Wow! This is amazing. Here we have two scholars with the same credentials. Both considered influential in their field. They seem to be in agreement on multiple topics. They both cite each other often; in fact, N.T. Wright (in one lecture and many times in his writings) cited Bauckham's book we are presently addressing as something that would bolster his own position. So why is there disagreement? Some would argue that it is because this is not a big issue. This is unacceptable, however, because, as we discussed earlier, anytime we say something about scripture we then speak of Jesus, because Jesus is revealed within scripture, which then affects people's faith. Here is another example of Wright versus someone else's interpretation of scripture; Neil states:
Jesus shares the views of the Pharisees ... but he does not share the crude Pharisaic belief in some kind of physical resurrection of the body at the last Judgment ... This is the basic conviction of the New Testament ... they are not interested in everlasting life, in the sense of life that goes on and on after death ... they are much more concerned with eternal life, in relationship to God which has an eternal quality in it.43
Wright counters him on this point:
The whole argument establishes, with rock-solid theology and considerable theoretical power, the point that the resurrection of Jesus the Messiah is the starting-point and means whereby the creator, in completing the work of rescuing and renewing the original creation, will raise all the Messiah's people to new bodily life.44
Notice the difference here; for Neil in the first quotation, Jesus is not referring to corporeal resurrection, but a "crude" notion of resurrection. Within Wright's argument, and indeed the entire book, there is the notion of a resurrection not crude but "glorious", as Paul stated it (Philippians 3:21). We must note that scholars have disagreed over these points for centuries, all using the same kinds of means to get at the answer. Here is, finally, another example at how this way of thinking operates. Wright—like a good scholar—argues from the position of scholarly evidentiary support. This is how he justifies his position,
Well, that's how most people read the passage [1 Corinthians 14:34] in our culture until quite recently. I fully acknowledge that the very different reading I'm going to suggest may sound to begin with as though I'm simply trying to make things easier, to tailor this bit of Paul to fit our culture. But there is good, solid scholarship behind what I'm going to say, and I genuinely believe it may be the right interpretation.45
This statement above generally describes what scholars believe is the best way for us to know who Jesus is and how we are to understand him. Notice, Wright claims that the interpretation of the scripture was wrong before now, hence, the need for correction. Wright, as a prophet would do, stands up to proclaim the Word of the Lord to the people. But he does not say this is what God has said. He does not even say that he prayed about what he is going to tell people. He grounds his argument in "good" scholarship. What is "good" scholarship or "good" evidence, for that matter? Isn't that subjective? People—based on racial lines— judge whether or not people in the O.J. Simpson (former American football star for the National Football League (NFL) and actor) murder trial presented "good" evidence on either side. Who is right and who is wrong? While the above questions loom in our heads, we must ask, are the scholars the people we should be trusting to interpret the Bible and Jesus to us? It cannot be scholars. They are offering incoherent and contradictory assessments of what is right and what is wrong about the Bible and about Jesus and using the "power" of history to do it.
Two things stick out that we can determine from what we have before us. First, there is no way to adjudicate who is right and who is wrong besides for faith. Second, they have become prophets in their own right. Just as in the Old Testament, false prophets would use livers, the stars, and other ways to "divine" or to discern what God has or has not said; they do the same. They have no real way of determining if what they are saying is "absolutely" true. Their arguments are based on "good, solid scholarship"— whatever that means— or as we like to call it, "the agreement of people who think alike." What makes scholarship "good" and "solid?" Is it not the interpretation of the scholars who evaluate it? For example, Kurt P. Wise is a Young Earth Creationist (a person who believes the earth was created in six literal days) and a Harvard educated Paleontologist. Despite his skill as a Paleontologist, what other Paleontologist in their "right mind" (we use quotes here because their "right mind" in these cases is the "wrong mind") would even read, or even agree with his work dealing with six-literal-day creation? They would automatically assume that all the "evidence" points against his beliefs. Additionally, they have personal concerns: they have tenure to gain, reputations to hold, goals that have to be met. They would be seen as weirdoes in the field. Why, because "science" has proven this notion to be completely impossible. The same goes for many of the false prophets involved in the study of Jesus. "Giants"46 like Bultmann and Schweitzer argued that the Jesus of the Gospel accounts is unknowable; therefore, a generation of thinkers followed them and most scholars begin with the belief that scripture is errant. All arguments about inerrancy are then seen "unscholarly" and "unfounded" then subject to the flames. The other group of folks we label non-scholars. These people try to interpret Jesus and the Bible by way of their own masteries. Many conclude with doctrines contrary to the scriptures themselves. They may turn to other religions to interpret the Bible or something else. The point is that they try and fail because their conclusions do not cohere with what we know to be in the Bible.
Prophets and False Prophets in View
Jesus was telling his disciples years before they went out to establish the church that there would be people who would be copying them but preaching a different message from their own. They would be false prophets.
And Jesus answering them began to say, Take heed lest any man deceive you: For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many ... For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall show signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect. But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things. (Mark 13:5-6, 22-23)
A false prophet is not a person who simply speaks a different message from Christianity. A false prophet fits the description of the scripture above; he comes in the name of Christ but speaks a different message than Christ. False prophets preach false Christs or Jesuses that fit the image of Jesus in some respects but are not the real thing. Prophets and false prophets are defined by what they say about the Lord and his Words,
If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. ... And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee. (Deuteronomy 13:1-3, 5)
We can see in the scenario documented above, that the prophet gave a true prophecy; however, the prophecy was a means to bewitch the people and redirect them to worship idols. Thus, this type of false prophet may speak truthfully; however, God is not his god: he is a deceitful worker for a false god.
In the New Testament, we see something similarly expressed in 2 Corinthians Chapter 11:
But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him ... Have I committed an offence in abasing myself that ye might be exalted, because I have preached to you the gospel of God freely? ... But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion; that wherein they glory, they may be found even as we. For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works. (2 Corinthians 11:3-4, 7, 12-15)
In this case, a false prophet is determined by whether they "desire occasion" or not; that is, whether their purpose is to garner praise for themselves or for the Lord. As opposed to some abstract false god, these false prophets insert themselves as the object of worship. Prophets who presume to speak in the name of the Lord have to show that what they have said has come to pass. It must match up with reality. We have an incident in Jeremiah Chapter 28 that illustrates this point:
And it came to pass ... that Hananiah the son of Azur the prophet ... spake unto me in the house of the LORD, in the presence of the priests and of all the people, saying, Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, saying, I have broken the yoke of the king of Babylon. Within two full years will I bring again into this place all the vessels of the LORD's house, that Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon took away from this place, and carried them to Babylon: ... .for I will break the yoke of the king of Babylon. Then the prophet Jeremiah said unto the prophet Hananiah in the presence of the priests, and in the presence of all the people that stood in the house of the LORD, Even the prophet Jeremiah said, Amen: the LORD do so: the LORD perform thy words which thou hast prophesied, to bring again the vessels of the LORD's house, and all that is carried away captive, from Babylon into this place. Nevertheless hear thou now this word that I speak in thine ears, and in the ears of all the people; The prophets that have been before me and before thee of old prophesied both against many countries, and against great kingdoms, of war, and of evil, and of pestilence. The prophet which prophesieth of peace, when the word of the prophet shall come to pass, then shall the prophet be known, that the LORD hath truly sent him. Then Hananiah the prophet took the yoke from off the prophet Jeremiah's neck, and brake it. And Hananiah spake in the presence of all the people, saying, Thus saith the LORD; Even so will I break the yoke of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon from the neck of all nations within the space of two full years. And the prophet Jeremiah went his way. Then the word of the LORD came unto Jeremiah the prophet, after that Hananiah the prophet had broken the yoke from off the neck of the prophet Jeremiah, saying, Go and tell Hananiah, saying, Thus saith the LORD; Thou hast broken the yokes of wood; but thou shalt make for them yokes of iron. For thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; I have put a yoke of iron upon the neck of all these nations, that they may serve Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon; and they shall serve him ... Then said the prophet Jeremiah unto Hananiah the prophet, Hear now, Hananiah; The LORD hath not sent thee; but thou makest this people to trust in a lie. Therefore thus saith the LORD; Behold, I will cast thee from off the face of the earth: this year thou shalt die, because thou hast taught rebellion against the LORD. So Hananiah the prophet died the same year in the seventh month. (Jeremiah 28:1-17)
Who was right? Hananiah or Jeremiah? Was it the one who had the best words? Was it the most educated? Was it the prophet who went to the better school or belonged to the better church? NO! It was the prophet who was spiritual: it was the prophet who was led by the Spirit of God. The prophet whose words actually came to pass—"the LORD perform thy words which thou hast prophesied." Thus, under the Old Covenant the rule to determine a prophet from a false prophet is documented in Deuteronomy 18:
But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him. (Deuteronomy 18:20-22)
Again, if someone does not speak in the name of the Lord, and what they say comes to pass we already know they are false (see Acts 8 for an example), but if someone speaks in the name of the Lord and if what that person says does not come to pass, they are wrong. If someone can show a sign or a wonder, and not speak in the name of the Lord that person is automatically disqualified. It should be noted that prophecy is not limited to future events only: "Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter" (Revelation 1:19). And if we examine the following set of scriptures, we can glean a definition of prophecy:
Son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel: therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me. (Ezekiel 3:17)
But the LORD said unto me, Say not, I am a child: for thou shalt go to all that I shall send thee, and whatsoever I command thee thou shalt speak. (Jeremiah 1:7)
Thus speaketh the LORD God of Israel, saying, Write thee all the words that I have spoken unto thee in a book. (Jeremiah 30:2)
Thus, simply defined, prophecy is to make known—speak or write—the wisdom of God as led by the Spirit of God. "For the LORD giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding" (Proverbs 2:6). And, "Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy" (Revelation 1:3): "for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy" (Revelation 19:10).
Under the New Covenant there is an added dimension for determining false prophets. What should we designate a prophet whose words come to pass but whose behavior is not in line with righteousness?
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. (Matthew 7:15-20)
In other words, a wise Christian discerns not only the truth of the prophet's words but also the truth of the prophet's character. If evidence of the fruits of righteousness—love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, and temperance (2 Corinthians 9:10; Galatians 5:22-23; Ephesians 5:9; Philippians 1:11; Hebrews 12:11; James 3:18)—are lacking, then that prophet is not rooted in the love of God. That prophet is "a corrupt tree" which brings "forth evil fruit." How can this be? How can a false prophet speak truth? Let us remember that "the gifts and calling of God are without repentance" (Romans 11:29) and do not forget that Satan himself knows the written Word of God: "for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone" (Matthew 4:6).
We would be remiss not to mention one last wrinkle. If someone speaks what turns out to be a false prophecy, does that failure mean that they are a false prophet? Well, based on Deuteronomy 18 above, it would seem that the answer is yes; however, notice that there is a caveat: "I have not commanded him to speak." A false prophet is someone who speaks for God but was not commanded by God to speak: a false prophet is not led by the Spirit of God. The prophet and false prophet are decided on this basis. In other words, the spiritually connected witness must identify with the truth. Thus, someone who speaks a false prophecy is not necessarily a false prophet: they may be ignorantly speaking by a lying spirit (see "The Principality of Lying") or by a spirit of witchcraft (see "The Principality of Witchcraft"). The key is whether or not they willfully—presumptuously—practiced deceit. This in no way is condoning false prophecies; however, mercy requires that we discern. In other words, make an assessment first before categorizing or forming any conclusions; better yet, ask the Lord. "For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment" (James 2:13). What's more, "Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part" (1 Corinthians 13:8-9).
Okay, back to the subject at hand. For all the scholars, preachers, teachers, who presume to speak in the name of the Lord we must check: does what they proclaim actually coalesce with the truth? Is their Jesus the Jesus of the Gospels and thereby of the scriptures? Alternatively, we must also ask another question—why are they doing this, for the Lord or for other reasons? Given what we know now, we must assume that without any initial evidence from these people what we know from them has to be based on faith. When people make a claim, we have to decide whether to believe it or not. We have seen the amount of disagreement these false prophets have had (there is so much more that we can explore but we will postpone that to one of our next books). What are people to do? Who are we to trust? For this answer, we must return to scripture. In order to get Jesus right, in order to understand the text that discusses him, we must go back to the place where we (meaning everyone: scholars, preachers, everybody) started and probably left—some angrily—to get the answers we desire. Why? Well, we must at least trust the book on how it demands it is supposed to be read. If we are reading a book written on Calculus and it tells us, "You must at least be competent in a bit of Algebra", for us to learn German and attempt to read it is to be wasting our time. We did not fulfill the requirements of the text. The same goes with scripture; Paul explains the necessary criterion for understanding scripture:
And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. (1 Corinthians 2:1-5)
Paul is arguing that he did not come preaching to people using the techniques from the external world (see "Preach Another Gospel"). He chose to speak with the power of God. He did this so people would not trust in the secular methodologies, as so many scholars do, and, instead, trust in the power of God,
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Corinthians 2:12-14)
Here Paul says that we are to know the things "freely" given to us of God. But how? Is it through intellectual process? Is it through some means of guessing? No! The prescription the writer of the book gives us for understanding his own book is "the Holy Ghost." So why is it that not one of the scholars we listed above (and we mean not one of them) ever claimed that this was the interpretation that the Lord had given them of Jesus or the scriptures? This is a difficult question to answer, one which we hope to comprehensively answer throughout the book. Another great question is how does one use the Spirit in this way? The scripture tells us how, "comparing spiritual things with spiritual." The Bible is considered— despite the objections most people have—to be spiritual. The Bible makes claims of its God that are extremely exclusivist; there is only one God and one truth (Christianity). As a result, the request of faith to believe means that the person is asked to believe the Bible. In addition, it can only be compared to itself. Understanding of spiritual things only comes from spiritual things.
The answer to our first great question (who is our Authority) is the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost has the authority to interpret the Bible; however, the Holy Ghost uses the Bible to interpret the Bible. Consequently, the Bible interprets itself. This now helps us get into the next discussion. Now that we know who interprets the Bible, what is the authority of scripture as it is explained by the writers of scripture? Let us make sure you have kept up with our argument thus far: we have concluded a few points. First, that to speak of Jesus is to speak of the book in which he is the primary subject. Second, that people who make declarations about the scripture are making a claim about the subjects within the scripture, particularly Jesus. Third, the people who make public claims about scripture and Jesus are attempting to operate as prophets by default. For anyone reading this book who believes himself to be a Christian, he knows that at some point he made a decision to accept Jesus based on faith (whether you define that as joining the church, baptism, or saying the creed, it is an act of faith). Jesus is invisible so faith is an absolute must. As the Christian walk goes, so does our understanding of Jesus. It must be based on faith. Making claims about Jesus or the Bible impact each other. The Christian who wants to disparage the Bible must also disparage Jesus and vice versa.
By What Authority?
Like the authority to interpret the scriptures, our understanding of the authority of the scriptures starts with our understanding of what the Bible says about Jesus. The scripture describes Jesus in several different ways. The one we want to discuss here is the Word of God. John 1:1 is famous because it describes that Jesus was and is God's very word. The act of faith is to check this claim and determine if it warrants validation comparing spiritual things with spiritual. What we want to determine is, what is the Word of God? Is it scripture? Let us look at a few uses of this term in the Bible.
I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name (Psalm 138:2)
For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them. But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:) Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.) But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach (Romans 10:5-8)
Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken (John 10:34-35)
And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. (Revelation 19:11-13)
We have four different ways the Word of God is described. First in the book of Psalms, God's word is exalted above himself. Hmmm – that sounds kind of weird. Why would he do that? We have in Romans the "word of faith" which seems to be, in the text, synonymous with Christ. That also sounds strange: why would the "word of faith" or the Gospel, as Paul calls it elsewhere, be considered to be Christ and not just about Christ? Jesus, himself, says the scripture, which he believes unable to be broken, is the Word of God. Finally, we have Jesus, himself, in Revelation being called the Word of God. Is this a confused mess? Were the writers of the Bible simply deceived and just in outright disagreement with one another? We say no. We do this first because if we have enough faith to call ourselves Christians, then we can presume that there is a more spiritual answer than this. Moreover, we say no because of what Jesus said himself; here he is referring to Psalm 82 and claiming that "the scripture cannot be broken." Why does he say that? More than likely, Jesus makes this statement because of his own idea of scripture. Here we speak a bit about his own understanding of the authority of the Bible. Jesus believed that he is the subject of scripture. He thinks that one can know who he is by reading the Bible, even parts that seem not to be talking about him. "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me" (John 5:39). Jesus' belief about scripture can better help us understand what is going on with the distinctions in who the Word of God is; is it Christ, is it the scripture, is it the voice of God?
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:17-19)
These scriptures are better accentuated when we grasp how Jesus and his disciples actually used the scriptures by examining the following other scriptures:
And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple, And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him. (Matthew 4:3-11)
Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. (Luke 24:45-47)
And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. (Acts 17:10-11)
Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) (Romans 1:1-2)
Jesus and his followers use the scriptures to declare who Jesus is. "And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself" (Luke 24:27). Not only that, but the scriptures also "testify" of Jesus. They, in themselves, speak (we mean this literally, he leaps off the pages) of Jesus. But this is not something that was scripted. This is something that God revealed to us as not only the Old Testament declares Christ, but the texts written proving his resurrection do so as well,
For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (2 Peter 1:16-21)
How can we comprehend what exactly is going on here? Remember, we must compare spiritual things with spiritual things. The Word of God declares that it is the Word of God. "For the LORD giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding" (Proverbs 2:6). It is the very representation of God's wisdom to us. We also know that Jesus, himself is the wisdom of God (1 Corinthians 1:24).
Hear; for I will speak of excellent things; and the opening of my lips shall be right things. For my mouth shall speak truth; and wickedness is an abomination to my lips. All the words of my mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing froward or perverse in them. They are all plain to him that understandeth, and right to them that find knowledge. (Proverbs 8:6-9)
I wisdom dwell with prudence, and find out knowledge of witty inventions ... The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth: When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep: When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth: Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him; Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men. (Proverbs 8:12, 22-31)
This unlocks the mystery we are evaluating. Jesus is the chief subject of the Bible; that is why the scripture indicates that it testifies of him. Scripture, however, also details that Jesus points back to the scripture to justify himself to others. He and his followers used the scriptures to convince others of who Christ was; in addition, Jesus used the scripture to defeat Satan. Saying "it is written" is an inherent source of authority in itself. Moreover, we know that, as 2 Peter 2 states, the scriptures were written when the Holy Ghost moved on the men of God. They wrote what the Holy Ghost moved on them to write. What they wrote was of God. So the authority the scriptures point to is outside of the Bible. At the same time, the God of scripture is only identified by the scripture itself.
What we have here is a dialogue between God and the Bible. God chose to invest himself into the scriptures. God has always spoken to by his Word. The Word has always been made flesh. In the beginning, the Word was made flesh by way of the prophets hearing and speaking the oracles of God. The Word was made flesh in the sense that it was the voice of God declared to humans by humans. God culminated this process in the form of his Son Jesus Christ. He is the Word made flesh who died and rose again for our sins. He gave us his Spirit and we then testified of him as before—but now we testified of our relationship with God, with him truly being fully revealed. Before this point, he was veiled as John said, "in the bosom of the Father." The scriptures at first depended on the prophets and it had its limitations, not because God is limited but because we are limited. Now, as Hebrews 1 states, he speaks to us by his Son and there is no limitation because we have been reconciled unto God. Reconciliation makes the entire process all the better. "The Sign of the New Covenant" section describes the state that Christians are supposed to be in, given our reconciliation with God. We now have the Spirit of God living inside of us in a way that no one else had before this time. We actually have the ability to have the Living Word of God to be in us. But this is not just a spiritual process; it is also physical. We must be diligent readers (1 Timothy 4:13) of the Word of God so that we may have the Word of God living in us. Our lives will be changed as we continue in this process ("to shew thyself approved unto God") toward becoming like Jesus in every way. We are "epistles" written on by the very pen of God. God literally writes his Word in our hearts as we believe and obey his Word. And since "A man's heart deviseth his way: but the LORD directeth his steps" (Proverbs 16:9), eventually, we become as his Word. "Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart" (2 Corinthians 3:3). Scripture and Jesus are to be understood together, never separate. You will find this true just by highlighting the amount of time the Gospels recount Jesus commanding people to, "follow my sayings."
Summary
This section is long and complicated, we acknowledge this, but we want to establish a few points so that you may know what you are supposed to understand. First, there is a God. Whether we like it or not we all make claims about the existence of God explicitly or implicitly through our words and actions. There is one God: "for there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" (1 John 5:7). He sent his Son, the Word made flesh, Jesus Christ to be the savior of humanity. Moreover, Jesus Christ, who through the eternal Spirit, died for our sins and rose again the third day to live eternally to bring salvation to humankind. Any Christian knows that he or she came to faith when he or she believed these statements made about Christianity. If you can believe in Jesus, and what he accomplished for us, then you can believe the Bible is true. Its authority comes from God and God's authority rests in the Bible. Anyone contradicting this point is wrong and if he preaches against this doctrine he is a false prophet. Just as we go to church, and say we are Christians, we must also say we believe the Bible to be God's total Word just as Jesus is God's Word made flesh. Therefore, understanding and believing the claims of Scripture and Jesus we can look for him to show up in our lives and change them in a way that we have never experienced before, but it starts with faith. When we take that step towards understanding his Word, we can better understand the scriptures; he will show us how to do it. So we leave you with this advice from the Bible:
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth (the Bible). (2 Timothy 2:15)
But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. (2 Timothy 3:14-17)
This we are left to conclude: when we come to belief in Jesus Christ, it is foolish to then question the foundation on which that belief is made. Either we believe it or not. In other words, we question the validity of our own Christianity by questioning the document from which that Christianity came. We know this from eyewitness experience. Once a person begins to question some of the teachings, or the existence of some of the scriptures, it will most likely, and in most cases does, lead to all out rejection of the Lord. The person not only stops believing in certain parts of the Bible but also begins to wonder if Jesus is who the Bible says he is. Did he really heal people? Did he really die for our sins? Did he even talk about sins? Was he really raised from the dead? The amount of people who change to this kind of skepticism is almost too numerous to even quantify. Most folks who start believing that the Bible is errant, stop reading it. There are few exceptions. Some of the scholars we named above still say that they believe whole-heartedly in Jesus. But the vast majority of people who allow a little doubt into their hearts turn from the Lord. It is the task of the prophet of God to point the people to salvation, through Jesus Christ, the Lord. It is the task of the false prophet to point the people towards idols. Idolatry is the end of the doctrine that questions the Bible and resultantly Jesus. If we come to the Bible, test it for what it says, and believe with the same faith we believe in the work of Christ, then we will be led to him. "The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law" (Deuteronomy 29:29). That is where true salvation lies.
DRAFT V2010-01-22T3:41:14 PM