The Bible is under attack even more and what makes these attacks worse is that supposed Christians are leading the charge. The one group of people who should be defending the Bible and upholding its proper status have let some of their members tear the Bible down and undermine its teaching. Jesus said if you love me, keep my commandments. He did not say alter the words of my father and me.
If we want people to give up their sin, accept Jesus, then we must accept the Bible as the word of God and obey its teachings. If we who are called by Christ’s name do not do it, how can we expect unbelievers to change and do it? Here is the link in question
https://peteenns.com/does-your-view-of-the-bible-make-you-an-unintentional-polytheist/
Another form of idolatry or polytheism that has emerged in Western Christianity in reaction, in part, to Enlightenment study of the Bible, and that needs also to be eschewed, is that of bibliolatry—viewing the Bible as somehow divine. God is divine, not the Bible!
We know who Dr. Sanders is, the author of those words quoted above. Dr. Enns quotes them to provide the context and theme of his post. But both Drs. Sanders and Enns miss the point. It is not idolatry to describe the Bible as divine. It is a divinely written book by divine authors. the Bible’s source is not human. No one who considers the Bible divine falls down and worships it. They look at it as God’s communication with us. Without the Bible people would not know right from wrong and so on.
Holding the Bible up as God authoritative word is also not bibliolatry. It is sayng that we recognize the Bible’s place in our lives and humble ourselves and obey it.
Hard-core fundamentalism and literalism, born in extreme reaction to contextual study of the Bible, have so idolized the Bible as to abuse it. Canonical criticism proposes to understand the Bible as canon not as a box of ancient jewels forever precious and valuable, but as a paradigm of the struggles of our ancestors in the faith over against the several forms of polytheism from the Bronze Age to the Roman Empire.
This tells us everything we need to know about Drs. Sanders and Enns’ views on the Bible. They do not agree with what is said inside, they take secular ideology over God’s word. They think that the Bible is limited to a certain place and era and much more. Unfortunately for them, there are no other divinely inspired words of God to replace those sections in the Bible they disagree with or fail to accept.
This is why we can say that they are undermining the teaching of the Bible. They do not believe it, they do not accept it, they do not like what they read or some of the instructions thus they determine that the Bible is no good and seek to replace it with their own views. The same problems the ancient Hebrews faced are the exact same ones we face in the modern world. The gods may change but idolatry does not.
Fundamentalism and literalism are not the problems here. Those aspects of the Christian faith seek to believe God as he wrote the Bible and stick to the truth. The problem comes in when people like Drs. Sanders & Enns do not agree with the Bible and reject its words. It is they who cause the problems and lead people away from the answers for their lives.
First, the type of inerrancy that is current in Evangelicalism/Fundamentalism today is largely (I would say essentially) a reaction to the Enlightenment and modern historical criticism. Modern “inerrancy” is not—I repeat, not—to be simply equated with earlier expressions of the authority and inspiration of Scripture espoused by key figures of the Christian past (like Augustine, Paul, or Jesus).
And why not? You cannot have authority and inspiration of scriptures without it being inerrant. The three go hand in hand. If the Bible is not authoritative, not inspired and not inerrant then where are God’s scriptures that are? Then why do these two people get to declare the Bible is what they think it is and not as God says it is? Why would we follow God and the Bible if it does not contain those three characteristics? Who gets to decide which passages are or are not inerrant, etc.?
How can we say the Bible is better than the alternative holy works if it does not contain those three elements? Then, why would we call anyone to a God who cannot produce authoritative, inspired, inerrant words for us to follow and live holy lives? The argument in the above quote makes no sense and makes Christianity out to be nothing more than a lunatic faith.
Second, the uneasiness concerning the historical context of Scripture in Fundamentalism stems from the fact that the historical study of Scripture challenges Fundamentalist ideology about the Bible. Fear of losing their defining narrative drives their reaction.
The Bible is historical. Archaeology, science and other research fields have shown that fact to be true. And no, there is no fear of losing a defining narrative because any alternative to the Bible being historical is a lie and false teaching. The only thing that declares the Bible to be non-historical are those humans who reject the truthfulness of the Bible. There is absolutely no evidence to support their claims. It is their unbelief that leads them to make such statements.
Third, when seen in historical context, the Bible is not a collection of proof texts, like loose earrings in a jewelry box, but a canonical narrative. The Bible, despite its historical variety, is a grand narrative compiled and composed in the wake of Israel’s grand national struggle in Babylonian exile
Not even close to the truth and brings up the question, where is God in all of this? Surely he would have something to say on this point. Of course, Mr. Enns has no evidence of this and seems to think very little of God. This statement basically makes the Bible a false document throwing out our salvation and hope. If it were true it is doubtful that the Bible would be the number one best seller worldwide for millennium.
Also, there would be no point in following its words. They mean nothing. Mr. Enns does not seem to realize what he is saying. If he were correct, and he is not, then we might as well close churches, Christian schools, and stop talking about Jesus and his redemptive power. The NT was written by the same author who wrote the OT and if the OT is false, so is the NT.
From this perspective, the Bible is much more than a series of verses that tell us what to do or think (and more often than not the Bible cannot be read this way
Mr. Enns is telling everyone that we have nothing to guide us or direct our lives. He is saying that there is no ultimate right and wrong way to live. He is very wrong, and that is the politest we can be. He ruins the Christian life and deprives all people of hope and salvation. Contrary to his point of view, the Bible is authoritative, it is our guide on how to live and it is God’s words. It is not a collection of human words discussing some ancient society’s struggles.
He is also saying that God has no interest in us. He cares about us so little that he cannot provide us with the right words to find salvation and please him. Again, Mr. Enns shows that he does not love Jesus and will not follow him and keep his commandments. He tosses the Bible aside for subjective human or personal thought thinking he knows better than God, the one who actually wrote the Bible.
To paraphrase Sanders, he is saying something like this:
Put the Bible in its place and then you will see its deep religious value. If you treat the Bible as a rulebook dropped out of heaven, you will miss the purpose for which the Bible was written in the first place.
The only people missing out on the reality of the Bible is Mr. Enns and Dr. Sanders. No one ever said the Bible was dropped out of heaven but it is a rulebook, plus a lot more. How can we be functioning members of God’s kingdom if we do not know God’s rules? How can we obey God if we do not have his rules and instructions?
The Bible is divine, it is God’s rule book and our guide to be holy.
theologyarchaeology 