Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Well here we go again

Another crazy Christian is spouting his mouth off again, talking about sinners, God and being born again. This time he has a beard, rifle, and is from Louisiana of all places so, as the reporter alluded to, I guess this was to be expected right? A reporter with GQ magazine was doing an interview, and we all know magazines are all the rage now so this interview was of the utmost importance and the attention it has received understandable. Well, not really, GQ doesn’t even have 1 million readers a month. I know blogs that get several million readers per month and they aren’t even the most popular.

This old, bearded, crazy Christian is Phil Robertson, patriarch of the Duck Dynasty show on A&E that brought in over 11 million viewers for the season premiere back in August of this year making it the most watched non-fiction series telecast in the history of cable TV. Also, in case anyone thinks that belief in God is becoming a minority position, 80% of Americans still believe in God and a good majority of those people are watching this man’s family each week.

DD

That means that Mr. Robertson’s family is talking to more people with his show than are reading GQ and guess what? They pray at the end of the show and talk about their faith on occasion around making duck calls and shooting defenseless animals. Something clearly needed to be done here. Then an idea was born, let’s give Miley Cyrus and Rihanna a break and send a GQ reporter out to talk to this crazy guy. We can talk to him about fashion, duck calls, his family, and um……

Sin

That’s right, after some relevant questions about his hunting weapons, a page long biography, and interjecting Phil’s human anatomy breakdown into the article where it doesn’t even seem to fit, but was just too juicy to leave out I am sure, the reporter asked Mr. Robertson what sin was and he told him, primarily by paraphrasing 1 Corinthians 6:9. “Or do you know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.”

Guess what folks…..That’s all of us, Phil, the reporter, you, me….All of us

The reporter wasn’t getting it though; he says “Okay, so perhaps it’s not exactly shocking that a deeply religious 67-year-old hunter from rural Louisiana would have, shall we say, enthusiastic ideas about what constitutes good Christian morality”. These ideas didn’t come from Phil the crazy bearded guy, they came from the Apostle Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. They are located in the inspired word of God. Phil is just letting you know what it says without trying to smooth over the fact that we are all sinners and guilty of breaking the law of God.

Some people don’t like this apparently. Do you know who they are?

Sinners

We are all sinners but we are not all mad at Phil. If you would like to know why just keep reading the verses starting where I left off above. It continues to say “And such were some of you but you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”
Some of us are just like Phil. Wretched sinners saved by grace so we are no longer angered by our sins being shown to us, instead there is a spirit of repentance and a need for forgiveness, or at least it should be that way. Those who are not like Phil are justifiably angry after seeing yet again how they fall short. One thing is certain however, it isn’t the greedy or the drunkards that drove the network to suspend Mr. Robertson indefinitely. If he would have stopped there on the list of sinners he probably still would have a job. It’s another minority that draws much attention even though as of 2010 they were only 3.8% of the US population.

That would be the homosexual community.

I think this is the one part of 1 Corinthians 6:9 that many today would argue is not sinful and therefore shouldn’t be included. Sure, we can understand how the Bible might say an adulterer would be a sinner, but not a homosexual, they were just born that way and it is completely normal, not to mention according to pew research a high majority of people know someone who is a homosexual. Many self-proclaimed Christians take this stance; I have even heard this from self-proclaimed homosexuals that also say they are Christians. The culture is accepting homosexuality so it must be ok.

But truthfully, this is just what we as human beings are making up as we go along when we come up with ideas like this. Mr. Robertson is not making this up, he is pulling his ideas from the Bible which calls homosexuality a sin in both the Old and New Testaments. The Bible also says that if we are Christians we don’t continue in our sin. Mr. Robertson says in his interview “We just love em, give em the good news about Jesus.” Then the reporter moves to second generation Robertson Jep who says “we aren’t as outspoken as our dad, we just tell them what the Bible says.” So it’s not the sinners word against Mr. Robertson, it’s their word against the Bible.

If you say you are a Christian and don’t like what the Bible says about your lifestyle then I suggest you not take it out on one man and demand his job over it, instead you should try and get a better understanding of what the Bible actually says and examine yourself in light of that. Mr. Robertson has some advice for you “We ought to just be repentant, turn to God, and let’s get on with it, and everything will turn around.”

If you are not a Christian then your anger is understandable, but instead of going after the messenger, listen to the words of Mr. Robertson who once again took more language from the Bible during the interview but nobody cared to focus on this part.

“If you simply put your faith in Jesus coming down in flesh, through a human being, God becoming flesh living on the earth, dying on the cross for the sins of the world, being buried, and being raised from the dead—yours and mine and everybody else’s problems will be solved. And the next time we see you, we will say: ‘You are now a brother. Our brother.’ So then we look at you totally different then. See what I’m saying?”

The end result of this interview should not be highlighting the religious views of one man and suspending him from his job because you are afraid of what 3.8% of Americans will think, what a magazine with relatively few readers prints, and the money you might lose if a sponsor buckles under pressure to stop giving you money. It should be the start of a conversation between people over what the Bible says concerning sin. The reporter asks “What in your mind is sinful?” attempting to personalize the answer, but it isn’t about what is in the mind of Phil Robertson, it’s about what is in the pages of scripture that matters.

Bottom line is Phil Robertson isn’t a crazy old bearded guy, he is an educated Christian man whose life was changed by the Gospel and he wants the same for others. Does he say it in ways that makes everyone feel good? Not exactly, but the point of the Gospel is not to make everyone feel good regardless of what some might tell you. The point of it is to change you from a person who loves their sin to a person who loves God and hates their sin, just like Phil Robertson said.

If you are a person who wants the message to be a bit gentler and wants to listen to what this family is really about, listen to Willy who was raised by Phil and isn’t as rough around the edges.

I am finally getting the time to go back to the “creation days” topic that I started sometime last year. I know everyone has been waiting with baited breath for the next part so I apologize up front for keeping everyone in suspense.

Day three is a very interesting one and a day in the creation account that to me goes against the idea that I hear often which is “It’s plainly obvious to everyone that reads Genesis that the world was created in 6 literal days”. In fact I was just listening to something recently by Kent Hovind where he said this repeatedly over and over again. Things like “If you gave the Bible to people that had no education in science or anything else for that matter they would all come back and say the world was created by God in 6 literal days”.
Well this just isn’t true and day three is a good example.
Genesis 1:9-13
And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place,
and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. God called the dry
ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.”
And God saw that it was good.
Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees
on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.”
And it was so. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed
according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with
seed in it according to their kinds.
And God saw that it was good.
And there was evening, and there was morning—
the third day.
Now of course if someone just goes to the very end and says “Look, there was evening and there was morning the third day, this means all of this was done in 1 literal 24 hour day” then I can see where Kent and others are coming from when he says things like that. However they are also leaving behind the rest of the text and potentially even not interpreting these words accurately. Now I am also on record to say that I am not attempting to disprove YEC, if you want to believe that this text says a literal 24 hour day then that is fine with me. I am not going to say that God could not have done it. However, what I am going to say is that the door is open to a much different interpretation and it happens to be one that I currently hold. It also happens to line up with science which I don’t think is a bad thing.
Notice first that this passage does not say that God created land on day 3. It says God said let it “appear” and he called it “land”. So God spoke the “word” which we know thanks to John’s Gospel is God the Son acting in creation and the land masses appeared. God creates “ex nihilo” and has already done so in respect to the earth. There isn’t anything here that necessitates creation so the movement of the waters could happen by natural causes over a period of time which God the Son directs. What time passes between “God Said” and “It was so”? The case could be made that it happened instantaneously or in the same manner as when Christ dealt with the raging storm, but what about the next part of that day?
God said “Let the land produce vegetation seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds”. Directly after this it again says “And it was so”. Once again, could God have immediately created all plants immediately and in a mature state? Of course he could have, the question would be is that what the text says? To the reader it would sound like much time would have passed between “God said” and “It was so” because of his command for the vegetation to produce seed bearing plants after their kind. This doesn’t happen in a 24 hour day as we know it so we can also say that the dry land doesn’t appear in 24 hours either because there is precedent set here for it. God is not “creating from nothing” on day 3 but instead he is crafting together what has already been created “ex nihilo”.

Also, the words “And it was so” are better translated “And it came to pass” in Hebrew. I am no Hebrew scholar, nor do I play one on TV, but that is what I have taken from those who are and looking at Lexicons and such. That being said I am always cautioned on that because I have to rely on others for this kind of study and they are fallible men with potential agendas and bias, but it’s the best I can do. Now that I have said that as a means of covering myself I will also say that the word “produce” or “shall bring forth” scholars say is the verb “dasha” which represents an incomplete action. Therefore even if one wants to hold to these things taking place in a 24 hour day, by this interpretation it didn’t have to end in that time frame.

So, to wrap up, God saw all this and declared it good and the evening and the morning were the third day. This is the line where folks like Ken Ham and Kent Hovind say “See, anyone who reads this would say everything took place in a 24 hour day”. However, nothing that I read before this would make sense to me practically in a 24 hour period of time. To that the reply would be “Well you don’t believe the simple words of the text”, in fact Hovind went as far as to call Hugh Ross a heretic and someone who must believe in a different God in a recent debate. But this just isn’t true at all. It seems to me that with current scientific evidence and common sense thinking we would have to approach this last part and ask how does this line up with the rest of the text and the rest of scripture for that matter.

There is another way to look at evening, morning, and day in this passage given the context of day 3, and every other day that is concluded for that matter (every day except for day 7). Hugh Ross of reasons to believe says it pretty well.

The Hebrew word ‘ereb, translated “evening”, also means “sunset”, “night”, or “ending of the day”. And the word boqer, translated “morning”, also means “sunrise”, “coming of light”, “beginning of day”, “break of day”, or “dawning”, with possible metaphoric usage. In other words, evening and morning refer to the beginning and ending components of “day”, however it is used.

So what we can take from this interpretation of the Hebrew is that God is simply telling us that this phase is complete. This lines up with the rest of day 3 quite nicely.

So in summary, could God have formed the dry land and brought forth completely mature plants and seeds on that land in a literal 24 hour time frame? Sure he could have, He is God, but is that what He is telling us he did and does it square with what we know now? Sure what we know now scientifically is of secondary importance but it is important. We know that plants don’t grow without the sun so if the sun was created on day 4 and plants grew on day 3 we have a problem unless God supernaturally intervenes in a special way. That’s not impossible, but if we look at the text and in light of knowledge understand how we have misinterpreted what is wrong with that? Biblical text trumps the fallen world but we can sometimes understand how we have incorrectly interpreted the text based on what we know to be fact.

Given that, I think it is a very plain reading of day 3 that says the land appeared as God planned it to in order for plants to be able to grow. After this the plants began to grow because the air, water, sun, and land had been positioned by God’s order to create the conditions necessary to do so. Science shows us this in a very similar way and can tell us the time frames they think it took, but regardless if it took that long or not, it didn’t have to happen in 24 hours just by reading the text. In addition, regardless of what Hovind says, it is a plain reading all of the way up to the final sentence that these events wouldn’t take 24 hours. However at that point we don’t throw all of this away and say evening and morning was the third day must mean 24 hours. Instead we understand that the land and the plants were phase 3 of God’s creation plan and it had a beginning and an end and now was complete and “good”.

Finally keep in mind that the entire creation account is summed up nicely in Genesis chapter 2:4 right after Day 7 (which by the way has no mention of evening and morning).

“These are the generations of the Heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the Heavens and the earth.”

The word “day” here is the same Hebrew word used in the days of creation in chapter 1 and I don’t hear anyone offering the argument that this is a literal 24 hour day. So from the young earth point of view the same Hebrew word in chapter 2 would need a different interpretation than chapter 1. On an old earth view this isn’t necessary and is much more consistent in that when you use the interpretation in both cases as “A space of time defined by an associated term”, the word “yom” in both cases means something longer than 24 hours.

“I am not a saint, unless you think of a saint as a sinner who keeps on trying.” – Nelson Mandela

Who was Nelson Mandela? Well he was the great defender of human rights against the evils of Apartheid of course. He spent decades in a prison for his stance against racist South African white leaders and then emerged as the President of that nation where he stood for peace and equal rights for all.
That’s the canned response I hear from all over the web and news outlets the last couple days as the world mourns the loss of a great leader.

And now…..The rest of the story

Was Nelson Mandela a great leader? In some aspects I think he was. He saw evil and he confronted it as great men have done through history. He was often humble and forgiving as President in his later years which is hard for powerful men to pull off these days. However I would not put him up there with Martin Luther King on a list of heroes as I have heard many do over the past few days. These were leaders that fought against injustice without resorting to violence or taking the law into their own hands which is clearly forbidden in the scriptures (See Romans 12 and 13). Bishop Tutu fought Apartheid in South Africa but never went to prison; in fact he roamed freely around the country with no issue while speaking out against the government. Why did Mandela go to prison for so long anyway?

The harsh truth about Mandela is that he decided to leave his peaceful stance against Apartheid in 1961 when he formed and led the militant wing of the ANC (African National Congress). Backed by Communist leaders, even though Mandela stated he was not a communist, he led terrorist acts against his government for years that resulted in hundreds if not thousands of African deaths, mostly among other black people. It was these terrorist acts that he admitted to and was convicted of at the Rivonia trial. In fact these acts were considered treason and carried the death penalty but the charges were reduced to “sabotage” and life in prison was the verdict. The charges were as follows:

• Recruiting persons for training in the preparation and use of explosives and in guerrilla warfare for the purpose of violent revolution and committing acts of sabotage
• Conspiring to commit the aforementioned acts and to aid foreign military units when they invaded the Republic,
• Acting in these ways to further the objects of communism
• Soliciting and receiving money for these purposes from sympathizers in Algeria, Ethiopia, Liberia, Nigeria, Tunisia, and elsewhere.

These acts were admitted to in part (he denied point number 3) by Mandela himself at the trial where he claimed to be sober minded and rational.

“I do not, however, deny that I planned sabotage. I did not plan it in a spirit of recklessness, nor because I have any love of violence. I planned it as a result of a calm and sober assessment of the political situation that had arisen after many years of tyranny, exploitation, and oppression of my people by the Whites. I admit immediately that I was one of the persons who helped to form Umkhonto we Sizwe, and that I played a prominent role in its affairs until I was arrested in August 1962”

He was clear in his statements that he didn’t intend violence but felt “morally obliged to do what I did” which was to formally declare that properly controlled violence would be allowed by the ANC and not punished. So he condoned violence against government on a certain level basically because the government had committed violence against protesters and he didn’t see how peaceful demonstrations could have the necessary impact.

To Mandela’s credit he stated that although he saw good in Marxism he was not a “Marxist” and held in high esteem documents such as the Bill of Rights and the Magna Carta and such institutions as the American congress and the British Parliament. His famous statement not many would disagree with and is a noble one for sure

“During my lifetime I have dedicated myself to this struggle of the African people. I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.”

However my question is did Mandela go about his struggle in the right way as the Bible gives liberty to do so? I don’t think he did based on my reading of Romans and other passages. In 1985 Mandela was offered release if he renounced violence as a legitimate means of resistance and he refused on the basis that the government would also have to do so. He was right that the government should have acknowledged their roles in violence, but Mandela should have stepped up and done so and repented of his own actions which I don’t know of a time he ever did. I think he thought his actions of violence were warranted and I don’t see any basis for it Biblically.
Martin Luther King said

”The method of nonviolent resistance is effective in that it has a way of disarming opponents, it exposes their moral defenses, weakens their morale and at the same time works on their conscience. It makes possible for the individual to struggle for moral ends through moral means.”

This seems to me a much more Biblical approach to violence perpetrated on us. Mandela said he had no recourse but of course we know he did because we have other truly great men to look at as an example and of course the primary example of Christ. From a Biblical perspective it seems that Mandela decided to fight an immoral government in an immoral way and that doesn’t work out in the pages of scripture.

It is also important to note that Mandela did not see himself as perfect or ask in any way to be idolized as he is. I think he recognized his faults and so should we. Not that we should forget the good that Mandela did either and bring up only the critical points like I also read in some blogs.

The facts are that Mandela was at times a great leader and defender of the human rights of his people, while other times he engaged in terrorist activities against his own people and his own government. We shouldn’t attempt to hide either side of the man or put him on an improper pedestal that he wouldn’t even attribute to himself. Instead we should do as every Christian should and judge his life in light of the Scripture even if it means we see the imperfections, and historians should not revise history to tell a story that isn’t true or omit things that don’t fit the narrative. Biblical history does not hide the evil nature of man even in great men like David because we learn from the good and bad men do. Nelson Mandela is no exception.

Specific verses on Terrorism and taking the law into your own hands as a citizen

Romans 12:19-21, Proverbs 6:16-19, Romans 13:1-7

Resources

http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2011/05/nelson-mandela-flawed-saint/
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mandela/mandelaspeech.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivonia_Trial

Many people today call themselves Christians, but how does one have the assurance of salvation? Paul Washer walks a group of young people through 1 John and gives insight into this issue like only he can.

Assurance of Salvation

John MacArthur answers questions with his typical Bold and unashamed style primarily on the topic of the false Church. Dr. MacArthur is not shy about dropping the names of people involved in the “seeker” movement, and exposing other religious systems and cults such as Catholocism and Mysticism, and explaining what he sees as the role these people and institutions are playing within the “false church”. He also explains what the biggest problem is in the real “Church” today and more. You will want to take an hour out of your day to listen to this.

An interview with John MacArthur

Sherwood Eliot Wirt interviewed C.S. Lewis in 1963. Lewis would go on to meet the Lord 6 months later so these are some of his last thoughts. I thought that some of them were very applicable to our own day and wanted to post portions of the interview here.

Wirt: In your book Surprised by Joy you remark that you were brought into the faith kicking and struggling and resentful, with eyes darting in every direction looking for an escape. You suggest that you were compelled, as it were, to become a Christian. Do you feel that you made a decision at the time of your conversion?

Lewis: “I would not put it that way. What I wrote in Surprised by Joy was that ‘before God closed in on me, I was offered what now appears a moment of wholly free choice.’ But I feel my decision was not so important. I was the object rather than the subject in this affair. I was decided upon. I was glad afterwards at the way it came out, but at the moment what I heard was God saying, ‘Put down your gun and we’ll talk.’”

Wirt: That sounds to me as if you came to a very definite point of decision.

Lewis: “Well, I would say that the most deeply compelled action is also the freest action. By that I mean, no part of you is outside the action. It is a paradox. I expressed it in Surprised by Joy by saying that I chose, yet it really did not seem possible to do the opposite.”

Wirt: What is your opinion of the kind of writing being done within the Christian church today?

“A great deal of what is being published by writers in the religious tradition is a scandal and is actually turning people away from the church. The liberal writers who are continually accommodating and whittling down the truth of the Gospel are responsible. I cannot understand how a man can appear in print claiming to disbelieve everything that he presupposes when he puts on the surplice. I feel it is a form of prostitution.”

Wirt: Do you believe that the use of filth and obscenity is necessary in order to establish a realistic atmosphere in contemporary literature?

Lewis: “I do not. I treat this development as a symptom, a sign of a culture that has lost its faith. Moral collapse follows upon spiritual collapse. I look upon the immediate future with great apprehension.”

Wirt: Do you feel, then, that modern culture is being de-Christianized?

Lewis: “I cannot speak to the political aspects of the question, but I have some definite views about the de-Christianizing of the church. I believe that there are many accommodating preachers, and too many practitioners in the church who are not believers. Jesus Christ did not say, ‘Go into all the world and tell the world that it is quite right.’ The Gospel is something completely different. In fact, it is directly opposed to the world.

“The case against Christianity that is made out in the world is quite strong. Every war, every shipwreck, every cancer case, every calamity, contributes to making a prima facie case against Christianity. It is not easy to be a believer in the face of this surface evidence. It calls for a strong faith in Jesus Christ.”

I don’t post on my blog every day like others do, sometimes I wish I had the time others do to be more faithful in my writing. I simply have too much going on that I think is more important then telling the public every thought I have on a daily basis. That being said, sometimes I run across things and feel that it is important that something be said about them in a public way and today is one of those days.

Former President Jimmy Carter is promoting a new book called NIV Lessons from Life Bible: Personal Reflections with Jimmy Carter. He recently gave an interview to ChristianPost.com that can be read and listened to at the following link

Jimmy Carters New Bible

President Carter covers a lot of ground in this interview, but the purpose for him writing the book I think speaks volumes to the conclusions he draws.

The overall purpose of the overall project is to bring ancient scriptures into modern applicability. When I speak at my local church, which I try to do 35 to 40 times a year, I try in every lesson to take the Old Testament text or New Testament text and apply them to what is happening to me or how that applies to the audience that I’m teaching in a modern, fast-changing, technological world. I use headlines, interfaith and that sort of thing.

You see according to Carter, the Bible is written for him to reason what it says and apply it to his own life in the way that he sees fit. I am currently writing my third paper on apologetics for my Masters of Arts in Theology and I comment on this interview in the section I wrote on Postmodernism and Reason. In our culture we can reason within ourselves whatever we want, and since there is no absolute truth, there really is no right and wrong. The former President can now add being written about in my blog to his list of accomplishments along with being elected President and winning the Nobel Peace Prize. I am sure he will be honored when he hears of this..:)

I should make everyone aware, in case they do not already know, that former President Carter is not a pagan, nor is he an atheist or even an agnostic for that matter. He is a self professing Christian that has been a deacon in his Church and a teacher as well. This is what makes his views on Christianity and the Bible even more alarming. Postmodernism is even more of a problem within the Church then without.

So let’s break down some of the points in his book that I found most alarming.

Carter: I believe strongly that in the eyes of God women and men should be the same and they should be given the same authority in the church, women should as men. For instance, my wife is a deacon now. She’s one of the leaders in our church. I have been in the past. And we have two pastors, one of them is a man and his wife is a woman, of course. I believe there is complete equality between men and women. And I believe those passages in the New Testament, not by Jesus, but by Paul, that say women should not adorn themselves, they should always wear hats or color their hair in church – things like that – I think they are signs of the times and should not apply to modern-day life. When Paul also says, I think the third chapter of Galatians, Paul says that there is no distinction between men and women, or between Jew and Greek, or between slaves and masters even, that all people are the same in the eyes of God. That’s what I used as a guiding light in that sort of argument.

So we have President Carter proclaiming that the Bible says men and women are equal. Not because Jesus said it, but because Paul says it in Galatians chapter 3. Obviously Carter is taking the passage in Galatians, that is focused on salvation, completely out of context. Paul is saying that there is no distinction between male or female, Jew or Greek, master or slave when it comes to being one in Christ. This has nothing to do with the roll of women in the church. Obviously Paul does not obliterate the lines between gender completely and is quite clear on the role of women in Church. Even if Carter was not taking Galatians completely out of context, to believe that Paul actually meant male and female played equal roles in the church we would have to discount Paul’s own direct teaching on the issue found in 1 Corinthians 14:33-35, 1 Corinthians 11:3.

If one wants to discount this teaching as cultural and not applicable to today then, even thought that would be disputed in the context of other passages, that is one thing by itself, however to site Galatians as Paul promoting equality in the Church out of context and then disregard 1 Corinthians that is actually in context is wrong. Paul shows the same distinctions in regard to the family and God as well in Ephesians 5. It is not that men are better then women, but that they serve different purposes and functions and Carter is obliterating those functions in order to mesh with a culture that agrees with him. The overall point that Paul makes is that men and women are equal as people in salvation in God’s eyes and they have equal rights as human beings created in God’s image, however their function in the Church and the home is not the same, not less important, but not the same. Carter shows his lack of understanding of the topic when he later says

Paul said that women should be subservient to their husbands but if you
read a couple of verses down it says husbands should treat their wives as equals

Once again Carter is confusing the issue. Women being subservient in no way means that they are of less value or “beneath” men. They are equal as people but their function is not the same. Carter then wraps this all up by saying

So you have to use your own modern-day beliefs and basic Christianity to select
which of those conflicting statements of Paul you want to observe that says we
should treat women as equals and says we should not discriminate against people.

No, we just need to read the Bible in proper context and then do what it says regardless of where the culture is. But this is just the tip of the Carter iceberg. Later in the conversation Carter decides what parts of the Bible are inerrant and what parts are not.

Carter: Yes, I think the Bible is completely inspired by God in it’s overall messages. But, for the people of those days to know what was going to happen 4,000 years later in a world of astronomy or subatomic particles. They didn’t have access to the knowledge that we presently have about geology. So, we know now that the world was created many of billions of years ago, 13 or 14 billion years ago. As far as they knew, the earth was the center of the universe. They thought that stars were little twinkling things in the sky where as now we know stars are very distant and much larger than the earth. For them to say that stars fall on the earth like they fell off a Christmas tree, that means it’s human fallibility. It doesn’t mean it was ordained by God who created everything. So I think that those matters of those lack of knowledge about science and technology that come along later are understandable.

I happen to be a scientist. My background is in nuclear physics. I was a nuclear engineer. But I don’t see any incompatibility at all with my religious faith and God the creator of everything and the incompatibility between when the earth was created as specified in the Bible. I don’t see any incompatibility there because those that were interpreting God’s overall message didn’t know anything about modern-day science.

So Carter is saying that overall the Bible is inspired but the writers obviously got some things wrong along the way so their writing was not completely inspired. How does he know this? Well because he was a scientist, and in his view science says that the earth and the universe are billions of years old. Since Moses could not have known this he was obviously wrong when he wrote the creation account of Genesis. Carter isn’t going to hold his ignorance against him though, I mean, how could he have known right?

Later Carter admits that God is omniscient so I guess what Carter means is that God knew how the Universe was created and tried to tell Moses but Moses was too ignorant about science to write it down correctly. This is obviously absurd, you either believe the Bible is infallible or you don’t. If you don’t then find the nearest waist can and throw it away, if you do then everything in it must be true and it is Jimmy Carter that is misinterpreting the meaning of the text.

When people thought that certain passages explained a flat earth centered Universe it wasn’t because the Biblical writers got it wrong, it was because human beings interpreted the infallible passages wrong. It is quite pious of Carter to think that IQ and scientific intelligence trumps inspiration, but once again this is a cultural idea that Carter is buying into and at the same time trying to harmonize the scripture with culture instead of gaining new insight to the world we live in and understanding how it works with scripture. We can be just as wrong about science as we are Bible interpretation and we continue to learn more about both the Universe and the Bible each day. The scientist and the theologian should be working together not against each other.

Then Carter decides whether or not Homosexuality is a sin. Of course he says it isn’t but his reasoning is interesting. He says that it isn’t a sin, not because Paul is wrong or because it was a cultural thing primarily, but because Jesus was silent on the issue.

Carter: Well, homosexuality was massively practiced in some of the conflicting religions at the time of Christ and even at the time of Christ, in Roman times show that homosexuality was widely prevalent. I think it’s quite significant that Jesus never did mention it.

When Paul mentions the verse, it can be interpreted homosexually critical. He also says that selfishness is sinful. He also goes through a whole gamut of things that are sinful. On Saint Paul, he’s probably one of the best theologians of all time, but I don’t believe that some of his teachings are appropriate today.

When I have a conflict like that in my interpretation of scripture, I go back and see what Jesus said about that.

Once again, with Carter the Bible is culturally insignificant and uninspired when it comes to these issues so he can make it say whatever he wants in regard to the culture of today. However Paul is not referring to the culture in Romans at all, in fact he is talking about men suppressing their truth in their sin and the act of homosexuality is included with the sins that men do because God gave them up due to their idolatry. They became futile in their thinking and their foolish hearts were darkened. This is not talking about cultural norms at all, but instead Paul is explaining why men think the way they do and how it leads to these sins. He speaks of many sins but spends extra time defining homosexuality specifically. Paul then wraps up the chapter by saying “Though they know these things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who do.”

Of course then we have to also discount the teachings of Timothy who learned under Paul, as well as Jude who is believed to be the brother of James the half brother of Jesus. They all spoke out against these things. However Carter just dismissed all of this out of hand because of our current cultural acceptance of homosexuality. His main argument though that seems to be more important then Paul’s error is that Jesus is silent. Well of course we know that God condemned this act in the Old Testament and I don’t think that Carter would deny Christ’s deity so Christ is not entirely silent. Just because Jesus doesn’t directly condemn the act in the N.T. Does not follow that it is condoned. Christ said that he came to fulfill the law, and Paul never says the law is void.

Dewey Hodges sums this up better then I could.

When proper hermeneutic principles are applied to the relevant passages, and when we rid those passages of preconceived beliefs, it becomes clear that such behavior is condemned without qualification in Leviticus, and this condemnation is assumed to be valid by Paul when he discusses the depravity as well as the end result of homosexual behavior. The entire Bible, in fact, presupposes that homosexual relationships are illegitimate. The creation of mankind was distinctly heterosexual, Christ’s relationship to the church is like that of a man and his wife, and the marriage union and the dominion mandate are distinctly heterosexual such that a homosexual version would make no sense.

In the end, Carter’s Bible is nothing more then the actual Bible changed to fit the culture of today. It does not follow an accurate hermeneutic, takes passages out of context, and only sees the scriptures as inerrant on a “high level” which doesn’t even make any sense. I would instead recommend the Reformation Study Bible if you are in the market for one.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 42 other followers