Dake Bible Discussion Board ⇒ Bible engagement is not inherently a good thing. WHAT???

[Grandfather]

Going without Bible reading for the Christian is like going without food for the body. The body can only survive so long without food (I think 90 days before it dies). The spirit of man will certainly die without reading, studying, and meditating on the Scripture, which is God's Word.

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 (Matt. 4:4)

Neither have I gone back from the commandment of his lips; I have esteemed the words of his mouth more than my necessary food. (Job 23:12)

Satan is using that blog to get Christians to starve themselves to death.

Victory, you are arguing the same points that Titus is, and it's a point that no one is making. The writer of the blog, does not suggest that Christians stop reading the Bible, to the contrary, he is suggesting they read it with motives of unity, not division, of unity, not discord. He suggesting reading it to learn of Him and His ways. Perhaps you didn't read the actual blog and only Bibleman's posting of it. For whatever reason his posting excludes that last paragraph and this very important sentence...."If we don’t promote anything else to quell the confusion of “biblical” truths, the answer is yes, Bible engagement is not inherently a good thing."

If you, or anyone, is reading the Bible without a heart towards coming to the One in whom there is no confusion, then reading it is not inherently good.

[titus213]

So let's see now, previously I wrote:

To even suggest that a person should not read the word of God unless certain conditions are in place is to deny them the very means by which God seeks to reach them.

To which grandfather replies:

"Funny thing, I have not suggested that. Please quote me where I have said that, alluded to it, hinted at it! Perhaps the problem here is that you are arguing against a point that no one is making and attributing it to me."

And yet once again in his comment to victoryword he again endorses this notion of certain conditions for Bible reading to become a good thing:

"The writer of the blog, does not suggest that Christians stop reading the Bible, to the contrary, he is suggesting they read it with motives of unity, not division, of unity, not discord. He is suggesting reading it to learn of Him and His ways."

In other words, in order for reading the Bible to be a good thing one must come with a certain kind of motivation and desire to seek God. The funny thing is, I know a number of people who came to faith in Christ simply by opening the drawer next to their bed in a motel and opening the Gideon Bible they found there. They had no motivation to seek God, or any particular interest in church unity… They may have even begun reading it in order to have a good laugh! But as Isaiah 55 promises, God's word never returns void. And God's word did it's work. Reading (or hearing) it always results in an encounter with the Holy Spirit of God, the author himself! Not just when our motives are pure, or when we are looking to have such an encounter… It is not up to us, but up to him.

"Just to illustrate previous points. Yes, the Bible claims to be inherently good and as such is it valuable to read, meditate upon, live by, etc. And while reading it may be a good thing because of the Bible's inherent, natural character and ability, that does not make the act of reading inherently good."

This is commonly referred to as doubletalk.

"Yes, reading the Bible is a good thing, but not an inherently good thing."

And this is commonly referred to as just plain confusion.

"If you, or anyone, is reading the Bible without a heart towards coming to the One in whom there is no confusion, then reading it is not inherently good."

Once again a statement which is proven wrong by the Scriptures. In Acts 16 we are told about a woman named Lydia who was listening to the word. Her heart was not open prior to that time because we are told that the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul. Isaiah 55 in action yet again!

[titus213]

Apart from the current discussion regarding the inherent value of reading the Bible, the blogger in his article makes the following totally erroneous statement:

"The irony of Luther’s rejection of papal decrees and church councils escaped him. He thought he had attributed sole authority to Scripture, yet the Bible itself was formed and finalized by church councils (check out The Fourth Council of Carthage in 419 AD). The very books to which he bound himself rested on decisions of the early Catholic Church."

Anyone who has actually studied church history would know this is a complete fairytale. The fourth Council of Carthage neither formed nor finalized the Canon; they simply listed which books were already recognized as the Canon for the benefit of the pope at that time. The Bible itself was formed and finalized by only one person, the living God!
"One thing must be emphatically stated. The New Testament books did not become authoritative for the Church because they were formally included in a canonical list; on the contrary, the Church included them in her canon because she already regarded them as divinely inspired, recognising their innate worth and general apostolic authority, direct or indirect. The first ecclesiastical councils to classify the canonical books were both held in North Africa — at Hippo Regius in 393 and at Carthage in 397 — but what these councils did was not to impose something new upon the Christian communities but to codify what was already the general practice of those communities." F F Bruce

[victoryword]

[Grandfather]

Apparently some cannot discern the difference between the Bible being inherently good and reading the Bible being inherently good.

What I find odd, is that those that want to make the case for reading the Bible being inherently good acknowledge that people have read the inherently good book, with personal motives that were at odd with the teachings found with, in fact they not only read the inherently good book but also used selected passages to support division within the body of Christ, to support immoral activities, to push political agendas that supported slavery, discrimination, and the suppression of women.

All of these actions support the fact that simply reading the Bible in not inherently good, because if it were it would produce good in all occasions, for all people and all times without regard to the motives, intents, or the desires of the person reading it.

Can it produce good? Yes, because it, the Bible, is inherently good. But just reading it, regardless of the condition and direction of the heart, is not. As A W Tozer said:“The devil is a better theologian than any of us and is a devil still.”

[titus213]

Contrary to this unscriptural viewpoint being presented by Grandfather I claim the promise of Isaiah 55, Hebrews 4, John 6, and many other passages. I prefer to follow the example set by Old Testament prophets, New Testament apostles, and Jesus himself. The glorious thing about teaching the Word of God is that I never need to worry about the result because God's Word won't return void. He's going to accomplish the purposes for which he sent it. Sometimes his word is sent for rebuke and reproof; sometimes his word is sent to announce judgment and condemnation. Grandfather makes the mistake of assuming that God's purpose in sending his word in such cases is not "good". Grandfather also continues to make the mistake of assuming that the way in which a person responds to the word of God determines whether the encounter with it is good or not. That cannot be what determines whether our engagement with the word of God is inherently good. The only thing that determines whether it is inherently good is the assurance of God himself that it is: it ALWAYS accomplishes his purpose, and that is always an inherently good thing, regardless of the outcome that man sees at the moment.

[Grandfather]

Contrary to this unscriptural viewpoint being presented by Grandfather .......The only thing that determines whether it is inherently good is the assurance of God himself that it is: it ALWAYS accomplishes his purpose, and that is always an inherently good thing, regardless of the outcome that man sees at the moment.

Yet God's word states... let him that has ears hear... they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding... But to this day the Lord has not given you a mind that understands or eyes that see or ears that hear....But to this day the Lord has not given you a mind that understands or eyes that see or ears that hear. Apparently reading the Bible won't be inherently good to these people unless you are going to contradict God's word.

So, until you can balance these contradictions your premise of "always an inherently good things, regardless of the outcome" falls short of what God's own words tell us.

you've already admitted that people DO NOT ALWAYS go to the Bible and come away with goodness in their heart. So, if your proof texting is correct, all the evil things done in the name of the Bible, supported by people who read the Bible, were actually good things. You can't have it both ways.

Either it is all good (hence inherently good) or it's not!

[titus213]

Contrary to this unscriptural viewpoint being presented by Grandfather .......The only thing that determines whether it is inherently good is the assurance of God himself that it is: it ALWAYS accomplishes his purpose, and that is always an inherently good thing, regardless of the outcome that man sees at the moment.

Yet God's word states... let him that has ears hear... they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding... But to this day the Lord has not given you a mind that understands or eyes that see or ears that hear....But to this day the Lord has not given you a mind that understands or eyes that see or ears that hear. Apparently reading the Bible won't be inherently good to these people unless you are going to contradict God's word.

So, until you can balance these contradictions your premise of "always an inherently good things, regardless of the outcome" falls short of what God's own words tell us.

you've already admitted that people DO NOT ALWAYS go to the Bible and come away with goodness in their heart. So, if your proof texting is correct, all the evil things done in the name of the Bible, supported by people who read the Bible, were actually good things. You can't have it both ways.

Either it is all good (hence inherently good) or it's not!

You're kidding, right? I give you passages specifically talking about the function of the word of God and you call that proof texting; you give little snippets from here and there and nowhere, and you call that… What exactly?
Please. Deal with the promises God has given about his word, and stop focusing on the way people react to it. To repeat myself yet again, a person's response to the word of God says nothing about whether they're engagement with it is inherently a good thing. There is no contradiction to the promises of God ever.

[Grandfather]

You're kidding, right? I give you passages specifically talking about the function of the word of God and you call that proof texting; you give little snippets from here and there and nowhere, and you call that… What exactly?
Please. Deal with the promises God has given about his word, and stop focusing on the way people react to it. To repeat myself yet again, a person's response to the word of God says nothing about whether they're engagement with it is inherently a good thing. There is no contradiction to the promises of God ever.

Titus,

I did what you did, if it is okay for you, then it should be okay if I do it in return.

A person's response to the reading of the Bible is what this thread is about. There is a difference between the Bible being inherently good and the act of reading an inherently good book being inherently good.

Again, I direct you to the last line of the blog in question, a line that was somehow omitted when it was copied. "If we don’t promote anything else to quell the confusion of “biblical” truths, the answer is yes. Bible engagement is not inherently a good thing." This sentence sets the parameters for the statement/question - Is reading the Bible inherently a good thing. And as I have pointed out and you have already agreed to, there are times when reading the Bible, with motives other than attempting to quell the confusion of "biblical" truths is not a good thing. So, intentionally or not, you have agreed with the authors position.

He then continues with: "So what must we do to use the Bible correctly?" Which implies that there is a correct way, and an incorrect way to use the Bible. Again I think we both agree. Thus with those two premises, the statement is correct.

[titus213]

No, you have not done what I did. I have selected passages that deal with how the Bible functions in actual use. You have not provided anything except a few examples of people who rejected what the Bible says. That is not the same thing at all. God has given promises concerning his word and what it does, and how it does it. Those promises are true regardless of the motive of the person who engages the word of God. Those promises are not conditional.

You state "And as I have pointed out and you have already agreed to, there are times when reading the Bible, with motives other than attempting to quell the confusion of "biblical" truths is not a good thing. So, intentionally or not, you have agreed with the authors position."

No I have not agreed with that and do not agree with that. Nowhere have I said anything that showed I do agree with that. I totally disagree with it. I have repeatedly said and will say it again that encountering the Bible is always inherently a good thing. The outcome or response to that engagement with the Bible has no bearing on the issue.

Again you state, "He then continues with: "So what must we do to use the Bible correctly?" Which implies that there is a correct way, and an incorrect way to use the Bible. Again I think we both agree."

I disagree with the premise. He implies that nothing can be gained from engaging with the Bible unless and until a person knows how to use it "correctly". And I am sure he has his opinions as to how to do that… opinions which may or may not agree with your opinions. But he is wrong at the very outset. The issue is not how we use the Bible, it is how the Holy Spirit uses the Bible! The Bible is not a dead, lifeless thing until someone is smart enough to know the "correct" way to use it. You really need to come to grips with Isaiah 55, Hebrews 4:12, first Peter 1, etc. You are seriously undermining the authority and power of the word of God by insisting that it can accomplish nothing unless it is "used correctly". I wonder how in the world the preaching of the word by the prophet Jonah could bring revival to pagan Nineveh according to your view? They certainly knew nothing about any "correct" way to "use" the word of God! The inherent power of God's word simply worked exactly the way he promised that it would.