SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : The Cult of Biblicism

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 Next Page )


By the way, do you only receive God's revelation from the written words or do you hear His voice in your spirit as in John 10. Who or what are you saying is the Real Jesus? A book?

Just keep in mind that His voice will NEVER contradict what is written in His Word. If you hear a voice and it contradicts what is written.... be assured it's not Christ you hear.

Iceman was correct when he connected the Bible with the Holy Spirit. The two work together.

Christianity is not the religion of the Book.

Interesting to note that Christians have long been known, particularly among Muslims as: The People of the Book


 2012/1/12 10:47

Joined: 2006/8/10
Posts: 538


There is a similar attitude out there that has been coined "Bible Deism". It is the position nearly all cessationists take. I think it is an extreme view to think that God would not speak rhema words into the hearts of his children today. Did not Christ say that "my sheep hear my voice". Or did that also end when the canon of scripture was complete. I am not saying that we are to believe every "God told me..." that we hear someone claims to have had. We must use discretion and discernment. It cannot contradict the written word. More on this subject can be found in an essay at:

Here is an excerpt from the essay:
For some of you I may need to explain first that a deist is someone who believes that God made the universe but since then has stood back and let it get on on its own. They are perhaps the scoffers of whom Peter prophesied that they would say: “everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation” (2 Peter 3:4, TNIV). It should be clear to all that this is not at all the Christian perspective, although some deists outwardly conform to Christianity. Deism was well known in the 18th century (many of the founding fathers of the USA were deists), and it is still common today. Freemasonry is in fact fundamentally a deistic religion, although its incompatibility with Christianity is made clear only to those who get into it deeply. Deere notes that the 18th century deists worshipped human reason, and it seems to be true today at least that deists give a higher place to human reason than to divine revelation.

Some Christians today, although not quite deists, hold to what is in practice an almost deistic position, that since the days of Jesus and the apostles God has let the world get on on its own, and will intervene again only at the end of time. Some who hold this kind of position are theological liberals. But others are what Deere calls “Bible deists”. Deere describes them as follows (pp. 251-253) (emphasis in all of these quotes is as in the original):

The Bible deists of today worship the Bible. Bible deists have great difficulty separating Christ and the Bible. Unconsciously in their minds the Bible and Christ merge into one entity. Christ cannot speak or be known apart from the Bible. …Bible deists preach and teach the Bible rather than Christ. They do not understand how it is possible to preach the Bible without preaching Christ. Their highest goal is the impartation of biblical knowledge. …

The Bible deist talks a lot about the sufficiency of Scripture. For him [PK: what about her? - but then most Bible deists don't let women teach Scripture] the sufficiency of Scripture means that the Bible is the only way God speaks to us today. … Although the Bible deist loudly proclaims the sufficiency of Scripture, in reality, he is proclaiming the sufficiency of his own interpretation of the Scripture. Bible deists aren’t alone in this error. …

So it is extremely difficult for Bible deists to concede that they themselves might be presently holding an erronoeus interpretation. They refer to their opponents’ interpretations as “taken out of context,” or as a failure to apply consistent hermeneutical principles. Or, in some cases, where they have little respect for their opponents, they chalk up their opponents’ views to just plain sloppy thinking. …

The Bible deist is so confident in the sufficiency of his interpretation that it is difficult for him to be corrected by experience.

End of excerpt
I agree with the main thrust of the essay but not in every jot and tittle of it, so don't engage me in a debate about it as if I were the one who wrote it.

 2012/1/12 10:55Profile

 Re: The Cult of Biblicism

Gee Whiz guys, I understood exactly what Wayne was saying. On entering the post for the first time and reading the first line, I knew that he wasn't taking away the inspiration of the scriptures being God breathed.

While others are putting their two cents in to defend the bible, that wasn't Wayne's intent.

"The Reformers believed that Sola Scriptura (“only scripture”) would answer all questions, resolve all doctrinal disputes and provide a basis of unity for all believers.....Today there are over 32,000 warring denominations that hold this doctrine."

The person who has one bible and reading it will read it and interpret as he see it, while another will interpret quite differently. What is the problem?

The problem is the source of how the believer comes to his conclusion.

To be blunt, the bible without the Spirit is dead to those that exercise it.

For example, the Catholic Church has the bible but it does not have the Spirit. She interprets the bible to however her mind sees it, thus discrediting herself as a true Church of Christ. Her claims are groundless. Her source is not from heaven. However, millions follow that system because they are thinking from the same source, hence, two cannot walk together unless they agree.

We can go further into the Protestant camps that have a similar bible and some of them have the same mind having not the Spirit. Still others have the Spirit but not necessarily be listening to Him but their own bellies.

"The reason is that the Bible, by its very nature, has no authority. It is a helpless book, totally at the mercy of its interpreters".

Again, I don't think Wayne is saying the bible has no authority, on the contrary. He is saying that it becomes absolutely weak in the hands of those that misrepresent it by interpreting the passages wrongly.

"By it's very nature" he means not by what is written on the pages as not being authentic and having no authority, God forbid, he means that the bible as a material thing has no authority without the Spirit.

For example, The Ark of the Covenant had an authority about it, anyone touching it who wasn't permitted dropped dead. But the Philistines captured it and they handled it without anyone dying. They propped it up in their temple and their idol lay on the floor bowing before it. They were so afraid of it that they sent it back to Israel. It became a superstitious object not to be touched.

We know this to be true in homes that don't have Christ. It sits on a shelf. At one time, all newlyweds got a bible, whether they were saved or not. For most people the gesture is superstitious. In the home it acted like a good luck charm. For that home, the bible is helpless, there is no authority, it gets shuffled around like a Readers Digest Condensed book or an old Harliquin Romance novel. Like the Philistines, it ends up being shipped out. They fear it but they don't change.

"Consider the endless debates about freewill vs. predestination, pre-trib vs. post-trib and eternal security vs. reprobation".

Actually, these are all doctrines of devils. Why? Because the devil always has us fighting one another over them. Jesus showed me a few months ago that He is not even in the midst of those discussions. We are yes, because it appeals to the flesh, but the Lord disappeared from among the people when the unprofitable debates began.

Philippians 4:8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

"The doctrine of inerrancy has destroyed the faith of millions by making the Bible the supreme authority of heaven and earth, and then basing its authority on a standard of journalistic perfection that it does not meet up to."

I don't know what the "doctrine of inerrancy" is, and I don't want to know. But it's the latter part of the quote that I wish to comment on. I think it might have something to do with the bible being infallible and if so, I don't think that it has destroyed the faith of millions.

You see friends, we don't have to have all our sentences dotted and have all our T's crossed, what is most important is that our foundation is sure, Jesus Christ and Him crucified. Everything else is dung. It really is.

I know people that will break off fellowshipping because a brother has a disagreement not believing the same teaching of one of the tribulation doctrines. What foolishness, what child behaviour. But that is the mind that makes the bible helpless in the hands of it's interpretor who interprets the bible the way he sees it.

Now the bible has authority, but in those hands it's misplaced authority, it's being abnormal in his life. The true authority would be to love God and love your neighbour. And he is not doing either. If he hates his brother, he is hating God.

"Why then do we cling so stubbornly to the creed of Biblicism? Because Biblicism is idolatry and idolatry is rooted deeply in human nature. The preacher waves the Bible and says, “This is the Word of God!” Because the Bible is an object that he can control, whereas the Living Word of God, Jesus, is a Subject who acts upon and controls us."

I never liked that either Wayne. Preachers would wave the bible and call that the word of God, and he is not speaking correctly. It certainly has the words of God, the testimony of God and His works, but it is not the word of God.

The word of God is God and in Jesus Christ. The scriptures speak plain on this matter.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Did it say, In the beginning was ink and paper a leatherbound book called the Holy Bible? Of course not!

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

This is the modern day thinking mind sees the Word.

"And the Ink and Paper a Leatherbound book called the Holy Bible became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld the Holy Book, the glory as of the only begotten Leatherbound book of the Father,) full of Ink and Paper."

The Bible is the Testimony of God. His exploits in and through men's lives. The word of God was spoken through men and they were all collected through a series of ancient writings that began orally and then finally written down when a suitable substance was created to carry the words of God to future generations.

Now this is where it gets dicy. The Bible doesn't stop at the book of Revelation because God hasn't stopped talking. God still speaks today and He is speaking through His people if we are willing to hear Him. God is still revealing His word to us. Shouldn't the inspired word that is spoken through Godly men today be written down and be attached to the Bible as a testimony of what God is doing through men today?

But then we pull out the scripture that if any man add to the prophecy of the words of this book. That verse is speaking of the prophecy of the book of revelation, not the bible as a whole because the bible as a whole was not compiled to be a complete book until many centuries after, all they had was the law and the prophets.

Just to be sure, I don't know wayne from Adam.

And to be completely sure. I love my Bible, especially the KJV. It has an authority else why would the world system be trying to snuff it out of existence. Having said that, I know what Wayne was saying though, and he wasn't trying to make light of the bible as nothing, but men who hold it like a good charm have and that is basically what he is trying to convey. It's useless as a good luck charm. Our faith is not in a book, it's in a person Jesus Christ.

 2012/1/12 10:58


The reason is that the Bible, by its very nature, has no authority. It is a helpless book, totally at the mercy of its interpreters. Consider the endless debates about freewill vs. predestination, pre-trib vs. post-trib and eternal security vs. reprobation.

Very interesting point of view. The OP is true. We can't deny that the current translations are littered with mistakes, mistranslated phrases and quotes, which makes the scriptures contradict itself hence the confusion. There are tons of additions usually in italics which sometimes renders the meaning of the passage in question completely different from the original manuscript.

Hence, the statement "It is a helpless book, totally at the mercy of its interpreters." is correct.

 2012/1/12 11:00

Joined: 2011/9/30
Posts: 1211


Hi Krispy,

I will let Wayneman speak from himself, but I would think that he has no problem with what you are saying. Do you understand what he and I and others are saying?

Now, the Pharisees thought that God would not contradict His word either, but they saw Jesus as contradicting it, right? They saw Jesus as having no regard for God's Word. This is the same accusation being leveled at Wayne. That is not what Jesus was saying or what Wayne is saying.

So, you see, we are saying that the Spirit is the interpreter of His own word and He is the one that gives it life (true meaning).

Just like the Pharisees with the Torah, Christians can say that they "love" God's Word and follow the Bible impeccably, but also just like the Pharisees they may not, as Jesus said, "Have the Love of God in their hearts".

We are not splitting hairs, here. Jesus was not splitting hairs. He was trying to point out something eternally important to the Pharisees and it would have really helped them if they were teachable.

Great talking with you,

 2012/1/12 11:06Profile

Joined: 2007/9/13
Posts: 1752


Great post Krispy.


 2012/1/12 11:09Profile


Very interesting point of view. The OP is true. We can't deny that the current translations are littered with mistakes, mistranslated phrases and quotes, which makes the scriptures contradict itself hence the confusion. There are tons of additions usually in italics which sometimes renders the meaning of the passage in question completely different from the original manuscript.

Hence, the statement "It is a helpless book, totally at the mercy of its interpreters." is correct.

So then what can we believe? The Bible we have today is "littered with mistakes, mistranslated phrases and quotes, which makes the scriptures contradict itself".

We are all hopelessly lost, and the Bible can not be trusted.


 2012/1/12 11:09

Joined: 2011/9/30
Posts: 1211


Good additional thoughts TrueWitness and Approved.

Did the Torah have any authority in the hands of the Pharisees? Why not, it was God's Word?

Does the Bible have any authority in the hands of many of today's false teachers and preachers? No, but if some soul is listening they may be touched by a scripture that is mentioned because why? The Spirit of God brought life to the letter for them.

Php 1:15 Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will:
Php 1:16 The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds:
Php 1:17 But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel.
Php 1:18 What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.


 2012/1/12 11:17Profile

Joined: 2011/9/30
Posts: 1211


Krispy, Jesus can be trusted to speak to us.

If a man has the Spirit of Christ, will the Spirit of Christ lead him into sin?

I prefer the KJV, but have had to come to the place where I believe that the Spirit of God can be trusted over versions of the Bible where some changes have been made.

John 10:4 And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.


 2012/1/12 11:20Profile


"So then what can we believe?"

How did Abraham believe?

There was no bible in those days, nothing written down.

One day God spoke to Abraham and whatever it was that God said to him, Abraham believed God, and because of that trust in what God said, Abraham was called "A friend of God", a father of the faithful, and was righteous in the sight of God.

John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.

We believe because we hear the voice of the Good Shepherd.

John 16:13 Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth: for He shall not speak of Himself; but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak: and He will shew you things to come.

Now if there be any mistakes in the written text, the Holy Spirit will correct them if we are sincerely seeking to know the truth of the matter or He may not. If Paul never wrote a single letter, we'd still be believers today because the Apostles and the early Church didn't have Pauls letters all they had was the law and the prophets and Jesus Christ in their hearts. And to be frank, that is all we need.

 2012/1/12 11:25

Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy