Why be holy?

Hi folks,

I've just posted a study on why we should be holy, from the salvation by grace and/or Christian universalist viewpoint, on my main blog. I thought anyone who reads this blog would probably find it interesting so please click on the link below to read it :)

http://sweet-indigo.blogspot.com/2006/02/why-be-holy.html

*hugs*

Helen.

"Love one another"? You're kidding!

"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." John 13:34-35 (NIV)

If Jesus hadn't gone on about love all the time, hippies like me wouldn't find him so fascinating. I rather suspect that if he'd toned down the love message and made it more, well, Pharasaical, then he might have at least kept the riffraff out.

In The Purpose-Driven Life, as I recall, Rick Warren made a big thing of emphasizing the "love one another" thing, but he - and a lot of other Christians - didn't seem too mad about Luke 6:27-35 (Love your enemies) etc.

I have the opposite problem. Loving your enemies is nothing compared to loving other Christians!

Perhaps I jest. I recall after a meeting discussing "Divine Command Theory", a friend told me, "Sophie's just said that she wouldn't even kill Hitler if God told her. But when I mentioned George W. Bush..." Of course, Sophie wouldn't kill GWB (I hope, anyway). Yet, I do sometimes think it's a lot easier to tolerate our enemies rather than our apparent allies. I've been reading a blog lately that seems to almost delight in discovering Christians doing it wrong. Anything they find on the web or in popular culture that is even remotely against their brand of Christianity - swearing, hip hop worship music, having doubts, saying that Islam is a peaceful religion, using chocolate for evangelism, being Rick Warren, being Brian McLaren - is blogged and duly condemned. The odd thing is, I do agree with them with some things - the Purpose Driven Life is really a bit shallow, the modern church's obsession with being relevant often compromises the gospel, the "me first" culture is a scourge to churches... and most of the things I disagree with (I'm not a literal, 6-day creationist for example) I can at least see have a Biblical position. (There are a couple of things that I do outright disagree with - Islam is not a violent religion, and Muhammad wouldn't approve of terrorism)

But, well. A little ignorance I can forgive, I thought, so why does this website bother me? It seemed that all the criticism was so loveless, so free of godly correction - in some cases they could have simply got in touch with the people they were criticising, rather than ranting from afar. Sure, Rick Warren may be an international figure, but sometimes they linked to one person's blog - in one case, a guy who was having struggles in his faith was demonstrated as an example of the "emergent" attitude.

I was getting nice and righteously angry about this website, when I remembered... "How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." Luke 6:42

Hmm.

Ya kinda got me there, eh?

Loving other Christians can be really tough, I suspect because we like to think that heathens have an excuse, but Christians of all people should really know better. It's tough, when you love God, to see another Christian be flip or disrespectful about the things that you take totally seriously. It's tough, when you love God, to be respectful when another Christian holds a theology that seems to besmirch God's character, and alarmingly thinks that you're the one who doesn't honour God...

Someone I know joked about burning heretics, then suggested getting hold of some (evangelical) Christian Union members. "Well, they think we're heretics..."

How can we love other Christians? How can we remember they're our brothers and sisters? (How is it I have more patience for Richard Dawkins than I do for Pat Robertson?)

I think it's difficult because truth and love seem to come to blows. It seems that if we need only love people who believe what we believe the whole truth, we'd find that a lot easier. Is there some kind of sliding scale, whereby I can love fluffy Christian hippies and argumentative postmoderns and confused Charismatics, but I love a little less fundamentalists and traditionalists?? Should Roman Catholics love each other but not love Protestants, and vice versa? (Or love Protestants as enemies? Or what?)

Can we argue? If someone speaks heresy, are you allowed to rationally argue with them or do you call them apostate and have nothing to do with them? (I suspect the readers of this blog might argue the former, or at least that may be why you're still reading :) ) How much do you trust someone who uses the label 'Christian' to actually be Christian? Is that for God to decide?

... My mum once scolded me for, in the course of an argument with my brother (many years ago), insisting that he wasn't a Christian; she even suggested perhaps I shouldn't be going to church if that was the kind of attitude I got (to be fair, she never stopped me going to church, or even threatened to, and since I needed lifts there, this would have been very easy to do). I suppose that I might say, well obviously Christina is a Christian but when it comes to Pat Robertson, God'll have to decide because I have no idea. I think I did at least have a case for my brother not being a Christian in that we had regular arguments in which he told me the Bible wasn't true, or I couldn't possible know if God exists, etc. My personal barometer suggests that if someone doesn't believe in God, the most they can be is a humanist Jesus-fan, not a Christian.

But how much do you correct another Christian (say Pat Robertson) in the spirit of love, taking him as your brother in Christ, and how much do you back off and say, "He is not in Christ, he walks in darkness"?

It's so easy to tell someone saying something you don't like, "You're not being loving" when you really mean that they're being too candid. If you pulled someone back from the edge of a cliff, you wouldn't be "unloving" because you had denied them the freedom to kill themselves. If you don't give your child a chocolate bar, you're not being "unloving" because you're denying them the chance to enjoy a chocolate bar, get high on sugar and be cranky all afternoon. The fact that Christians with different views try to correct me may be "intolerant" but it is definitely a part of loving. Isn't that disturbing? (Doesn't "Intolerant love" sound like the title of some hard-hitting Christian book? If you want to write it, please do. Don't credit me though - people might think I have backbone... Oh, apparently someone's nearly already done it) If someone says something that makes you uncomfortable, the disturbing thing is that they may be doing it because they love you...!

But it's also so easy to enjoy candor in the guise of "tough love". Did I want to e-mail that website because I would take a certain delight in cutting the writers down to size? We congratulate ourselves on our ability to speak candidly, not aware that our broken eggs aren't making omelettes, but just staying in a stubborn broken mess.

Humility is, I suspect, the key. If I really want Christians to love each other, and love and honour God, I doubt I'll persuade anyone of the truth by raging in and telling them what dreadful sinners they are and how they must REPENT!! REPENT OR BURN!!! Is it possible for love to be both gentle and tough? There is more to love than wishy-washy tolerance, but certainly love is, though persistent, though powerful, though enduring, also sensitive, considerate, gentle.

Let's stop this wishy-washy rubbish and listen to Paul instead, who, no matter what Starkey might say, knew the heart of Christ.

1 Corinthians 13:4-13
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

That Bible Study I promised... On Matthew (Part 1)

Hi Folks,

(Is it just me or would have "thehellblog" been a better name for this blog? If you want some slightly more edifying thoughts on the message of Jesus, try the latest entry in my main blog where I think about Jesus's attitude to "success"...) Convinced that this hell issue is much more complicated that many traditionalists would have us believe (I've heard so many people say lately, "Jesus is very clear..."), I picked through the Gospel of Matthew for references and supposed references to Heaven, Hell, the afterlife, judgement etc. I want to do the other gospels and the epistles, Revelation and a small look at the Old Testament (there doesn't seem to be very much about "afterlife" in the OT, in actual fact).

I say "supposed references" because what I read on some sites suggests that Jesus wasn't actually referring to an "afterlife" at all. I've been wondering what the best translation to use would be - you can read Young's Literal Translation on Bible Gateway which is supposed to be a literal rendering of the Greek - with the advantage that it is an unbiased translation, not putting on what may be false meaning, but the disadvantage that the reader may not understand the usage of the Greek and may personally misinterpret. So I've decided to use both the YLT and the NIV.

This is what I found:

References/Supposed references to Hell
Matt 3:11-12 - spoken of Jesus:
11`I indeed do baptize you with water to reformation, but he who after me is coming is mightier than I, of whom I am not worthy to bear the sandals, he shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire,

12whose fan [is] in his hand, and he will thoroughly cleanse his floor, and will gather his wheat to the storehouse, but the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable.' (YLT)

11 I baptise you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptise you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

12 His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing-floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire. (NIV)

My NLT Bible renders "unquenchable" as "never-ending" but Samuel G. Dawson's article on Jesus' teaching on Hell notes that, referring to "unquenchable fire", "In Ezk. 20.47-48, God promised such a national judgment on Judah". Obviously the fire, despite its unquenchability, was not neverending. My university CU, or at least a small group I attended, was still quite happy to make this one about Hell - two kinds of people - although I argued that it could be more about destroying the sin within one person, and bringing the "re-born" person into the Kingdom. I believe that in the OT God refers to a furnace that burns away impurities, although I admit that in this case, chaff isn't generally known to survive the burning process. (I might dare to suggest there's an argument for annihilationism here...)

Matt 5:20
22but I -- I say to you, that every one who is angry at his brother without cause, shall be in danger of the judgment, and whoever may say to his brother, Empty fellow! shall be in danger of the sanhedrim, and whoever may say, Rebel! shall be in danger of the gehenna of the fire. YLT

22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell. NIV

Apparently at least three words in the KJV (Gehenna, Sheol, Hades) were translated "Hell", although such words were also translated "grave" "death" etc. when it suited the translators. What's interesting here, is that if we take the traditional interpretation of Hell as the place of eternal punishment after death, we can apparently get there by calling our brother a fool, or perhaps an "empty fellow" (thankfully I've never called my brother that). The article linked to above and some other websites (see MartinZender.com for example) seem to take Gehenna as literal, referring to the valley known as Gehenna outside Jerusalem, and contend that the judgement of Gehenna took place at the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. I'm not sure this can be entirely true, however, since I learn that Jews believe in Gehenna as a place of afterlife punishment, although more as a purifying place than one of eternal torment, and it only lasts a year (see Jew FAQ).

Even so, going to Hell for calling your brother a fool (or even a rebel) does seem somewhat outside the Christian mainstream. Any thoughts, dear readers?

Matt 7:13,14 13`Go ye in through the strait gate, because wide [is] the gate, and broad the way that is leading to the destruction, and many are those going in through it;

14how strait [is] the gate, and compressed the way that is leading to the life, and few are those finding it! YLT

13 Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.
14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. NIV

This seems to be implying that lots of people go to Hell/destruction and few people go to Heaven/life. Charles Slagle has written a piece on what he believes to be the correct interpretation of these verses. I do find these verses curious because of the use of "many" in other verses (eg. Hebrews 2:10) to describe what traditionalists believe to be the same group as the "few" in these verses. It also says that "few ever find it" and in Luke 13:24 Jesus even says that `Be striving to go in through the straight gate, because many, I say to you, will seek to go in, and shall not be able' This almost seems to be using a "salvation by works" approach, that it would be possible to seek to enter, yet not be able to enter. I do have to wonder if we haven't been a bit simplistic in our interpretation of these verses.

Matt 8:11-12 11'and I say to you, that many from east and west shall come and recline (at meat) with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the reign of the heavens,

12but the sons of the reign shall be cast forth to the outer darkness -- there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of the teeth.' YLT

11 I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.

12 But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. NIV

My NLT translates "sons of the reign" as "many Israelites - those for whom the Kingdom was prepared". Again, an "alternative" interpretation is that the "reign of the heavens" or the "kingdom of heaven" is the 1000 year kingdom spoken of in Revelation, and so the Jews who were cast out will not be permanently lost. Paul certainly does seem to believe that all Israel will be saved... as Romans 11:26 says And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.

Matt 11:22 21`Wo to thee, Chorazin! wo to thee, Bethsaida! because, if in Tyre and Sidon had been done the mighty works that were done in you, long ago in sackcloth and ashes they had reformed;

22but I say to you, to Tyre and Sidon it shall be more tolerable in a day of judgment than for you. YLT

21 Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.

22 But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. NIV

This has been used to claim that people will suffer different levels of punishment in Hell, the kind where petty thieves get 500 degrees and stars of reality television get 1000 degrees. I'm not sure this is a particularly sound position, as Ezekiel 33:11 reads Say to them, 'As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, O house of Israel?' (NIV) And I have to wonder that if God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked why he, knowing that the miracles of Jesus would cause them to repent, he wouldn't have caused their repentance, if he knew they were to be lost eternally, albeit to a fate less painful than that of Chorazin and Bethsaida.

Matt 11:23-24
23`And thou, Capernaum, which unto the heaven wast exalted, unto hades shalt be brought down, because if in Sodom had been done the mighty works that were done in thee, it had remained unto this day;

24but I say to you, to the land of Sodom it shall be more tolerable in a day of judgment than to thee.' YLT

23 And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day.

24 But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you. NIV

This is something that actually seems to imply that the judgement will be in this life, as with the judgement of Sodom. I was surprised to discover that this isn't the only prophecy that looks good for Sodom - see also Ezekiel 16:53 'However, I will restore the fortunes of Sodom and her daughters and of Samaria and her daughters, and your fortunes along with them' (NIV).

Matt 13:37-43
37And he answering said to them, `He who is sowing the good seed is the Son of Man,
38and the field is the world, and the good seed, these are the sons of the reign, and the darnel are the sons of the evil one,
39and the enemy who sowed them is the devil, and the harvest is a full end of the age, and the reapers are messengers.
40`As, then, the darnel is gathered up, and is burned with fire, so shall it be in the full end of this age,
41the Son of Man shall send forth his messengers, and they shall gather up out of his kingdom all the stumbling-blocks, and those doing the unlawlessness,
42and shall cast them to the furnace of the fire; there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of the teeth.
43`Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the reign of their Father. He who is having ears to hear -- let him hear. YLT

I've heard "end of the age" interpreted as the crucifixion/resurrection/destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 (The NIV also uses "end of the age"). These verses sent my annihiliationist mindset spinning when I saw both the fiery furnace and the weeping and gnashing of teeth together. It's also a bit distressing for the Arminian, since it seems to imply that the righteous and the unrighteous were made that way.

(On eternal pun-ishment and the fate of the wheat and the weeds... I note that wheat has ears...)

Matt 13:47-50 has a similar parable, with good and bad fish instead of wheat and weeds, and includes the fiery furnace, and weeping and gnashing of teeth. Something tells me I ought to do a study on the fiery furnace.

Matt 18:6-7
6and whoever may cause to stumble one of those little ones who are believing in me, it is better for him that a weighty millstone may be hanged upon his neck, and he may be sunk in the depth of the sea.

7`Wo to the world from the stumbling-blocks! for there is a necessity for the stumbling-blocks to come, but wo to that man through whom the stumbling-block doth come! YLT

6 But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

7 Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come! NIV

I believe I've read this in a piece on Hell... in any case, this is quite strange, since it seems to say that sin is necessary, or perhaps inevitable. A friend told me that the scariest church drama she'd ever seen involved a six year old child, of atheist parents, dying going to Hell. I wish I'd had the presence of mind to quote these verses since it seems more likely that the six year old's parents would go to Hell.

Matt 18:8-9
8`And if thy hand or thy foot doth cause thee to stumble, cut them off and cast from thee; it is good for thee to enter into the life lame or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet, to be cast to the fire the age-during.

9`And if thine eye doth cause thee to stumble, pluck it out and cast from thee; it is good for thee one-eyed to enter into the life, rather than having two eyes to be cast to the gehenna of the fire. YLT

8 If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire.

9 And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell. NIV

I assume that the vast majority of Christians don't take this literally, or at least don't believe that their hands, feet or eyes have ever caused them to sin. In fact this is probably one of the few examples of a teaching on Hell that could be taken literally, but is taken figuratively by the Church. The distinction between "age-during" and "eternal" is interesting. I've read a vast amount of articles recently that claim that "eternal" is a mistranslation of "aionian" which means "of the age" or "for an age" (see Ken Eckerty's article for example). I've also heard counter-arguments that "aionian" is ambiguous in meaning, and is also used to mean "eternal" (see CARM for example).

Matt 18:12-14
12`What think ye? if a man may have an hundred sheep, and there may go astray one of them, doth he not -- having left the ninety-nine, having gone on the mountains -- seek that which is gone astray?

13and if it may come to pass that he doth find it, verily I say to you, that he doth rejoice over it more than over the ninety-nine that have not gone astray;

14so it is not will in presence of your Father who is in the heavens, that one of these little ones may perish. YLT

12 What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off?

13 And if he finds it, I tell you the truth, he is happier about that one sheep than about the ninety-nine that did not wander off.

14 In the same way your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should be lost. NIV

There is an anti-free will slant on these verses, implying that God isn't willing they should perish, so therefore they won't.

Interesting.

Matt 18:34
34`And having been wroth, his lord delivered him to the inquisitors, till he might pay all that was owing to him; YLT

34 In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed. NIV

Now this is even more curious... there is definite conscious punishment in this parable, and definite retribution - the unforgiving servant is himself not forgiven. But although the punishment is probably long and very painful, it isn't forever. I discussed this one with someone who believed in eternal torment and she actually faltered and said, "You have to understand the limitations of the parable." This I didn't buy, since why say "until" if there is no "until"? Why not just say he was turned over forever? Again, this makes me wonder if we haven't been far too simplistic on our interpretation of these verses.

Matt 21:41-43
41They say to him, `Evil men -- he will evilly destroy them, and the vineyard will give out to other husbandmen, who will give back to him the fruits in their seasons.'

42Jesus saith to them, `Did ye never read in the Writings, A stone that the builders disallowed, it became head of a corner; from the Lord hath this come to pass, and it is wonderful in our eyes.

43`Because of this I say to you, that the reign of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth its fruit; YLT

41 He will bring those wretches to a wretched end, they replied, and he will rent the vineyard to other tenants, who will give him his share of the crop at harvest time.

42 Jesus said to them, Have you never read in the Scriptures:

'The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone; the Lord has done this, and it is marvellous in our eyes'?

43Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit. NIV

This is another parable that can be taken in a "this life" context, and can use the destruction of the temple in AD 70, yet again! The phrase "kingdom of God" is interesting (I'm going to do a study on that, so patience please!) because it's used not only of heaven but of an unseen kingdom existing within the disciples (see Luke 17:21 for example). So it may be interpreted that God is removing the priesthood from the traditional priests and from the teachers of the law, and granting it to the disciples of Jesus.

Matt 23:33-35
33`Serpents! brood of vipers! how may ye escape from the judgment of the gehenna?

34`Because of this, lo, I send to you prophets, and wise men, and scribes, and of them ye will kill and crucify, and of them ye will scourge in your synagogues, and will pursue from city to city;

35that on you may come all the righteous blood being poured out on the earth from the blood of Abel the righteous, unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the sanctuary and the altar:

36verily I say to you, all these things shall come upon this generation. YLT

33 You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?

34 Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town.

35 And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berakiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.

36 I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation. NIV

Again, note the distinction between "judgement of Gehenna" and "condemned to Hell". This is addressed to the Pharisees. I do have to wonder, given the different attitudes of Jews to Gehenna (see Jew FAQ link above) if this hasn't been misinterpreted by the NIV (and countless other) translators. I have also heard this explained in a "this life" ("preterist" is the correct term) context, saying that the judgement of Gehenna ended in AD 70 (hence "this generation"), especially as Jesus prophesies the destruction of the temple in Matt 24:2.

Matt 24:30-35
30and then shall appear the sign of the Son of Man in the heaven; and then shall all the tribes of the earth smite the breast, and they shall see the Son of Man coming upon the clouds of the heaven, with power and much glory;

31and he shall send his messengers with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his chosen from the four winds, from the ends of the heavens unto the ends thereof.

32`And from the fig-tree learn ye the simile: When already its branch may have become tender, and the leaves it may put forth, ye know that summer [is] nigh,

33so also ye, when ye may see all these, ye know that it is nigh -- at the doors.

34Verily I say to you, this generation may not pass away till all these may come to pass.

35The heaven and the earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. YLT

30At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory.

31 And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

32 Now learn this lesson from the fig-tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near.

33 Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door.

34 I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. NIV

I suppose this is more "end times" than Hell exactly but again, note the use of "this generation". I also see that "all the nations of the earth shall mourn", which would seem to be another one for the Hell camp. Why are they mourning? Is it because their sin is exposed? Again, use of chosen which suggests either predestination or perhaps salvation by works.

Matt 24:50-51
50the lord of that servant will arrive in a day when he doth not expect, and in an hour of which he doth not know,

51and will cut him off, and his portion with the hypocrites will appoint; there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of the teeth. YLT

50 The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of.

51 He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. NIV

Jesus really, really doesn't like hypocrites. In fact, I believe he even coined the term hypocrite in its current usage (it previously referred to an actor on stage... he used it to describe religious pretenders). Again, weeping and gnashing of teeth. This verse suggests that Hell is for disciples who know the truth but don't abide by it - they don't "work out" their salvation.

Matthew 25:29-30
29for to every one having shall be given, and he shall have overabundance, and from him who is not having, even that which he hath shall be taken from him;

30and the unprofitable servant cast ye forth to the outer darkness; there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of the teeth. YLT

29 For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him.

30 And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' NIV

Darkness and weeping and gnashing of teeth again! This is from the parable of the talents, commonly used by school teachers to guilt their students into working hard. Again, the judgement here is against the servant, the disciple, who did not work out his salvation.

Matt 25:41-46
41Then shall he say also to those on the left hand, Go ye from me, the cursed, to the fire, the age-during, that hath been prepared for the Devil and his messengers;

42for I did hunger, and ye gave me not to eat; I did thirst, and ye gave me not to drink;

43a stranger I was, and ye did not receive me; naked, and ye put not around me; infirm, and in prison, and ye did not look after me.

44`Then shall they answer, they also, saying, Lord, when did we see thee hungering, or thirsting, or a stranger, or naked, or infirm, or in prison, and we did not minister to thee?

45`Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say to you, Inasmuch as ye did [it] not to one of these, the least, ye did [it] not to me.

46And these shall go away to punishment age-during, but the righteous to life age-during.' YLT

41 Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink,

43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

44 They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

45 He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

46 Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life. NIV

Again, note difference between "age-during" and "eternal" (now you're thinking, but what's age-during life? Be patient, I want to do a study on eternal life too). I've frequently heard Hell apologists quote Matt 25:46 (NIV or KJV, of course) but refuse to take the rest of the passage even remotely literally. I was amused, for example that The Shock of Your Life by Adrian Holloway which attempts to scare educate young people about Heaven and Hell quoted the beginning of the story and the end but left out the middle. Why? Because it makes it sound awfully like salvation by works, that's why!

When I've raised this with Hell believers they usually take the position that either Jesus was talking to non-believers or he was talking to believers, but definitely not both, all together, indescriminately. This has always seemed a bit dodgy to me because Matt 25:32 says "all nations".

Matt 26:24
24the Son of Man doth indeed go, as it hath been written concerning him, but wo to that man through whom the Son of Man is delivered up! good it were for him if that man had not been born.' YLT

24 The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born. NIV

Though I've heard dodgy reinterpretations of this verse, I'm fairly certain that Jesus is saying "Woe to Judas, it would be better for Judas if Judas had never been born" not "woe to Judas, it would be better for Jesus if Judas had never been born" or any variant. Again, it's used as evidence for Hell, since one might argue that if Judas is going to be saved eventually then it wouldn't be better for Judas not to be born. Although again there's a certain amount of predestination here, since Jesus had to be betrayed in order to redeem humanity so one might argue that someone had to do the dirty work. Counter arguments suggest that Jesus was using a rhetorical device, similar to in Ecclesiastes where the author says, 3 A man may have a hundred children and live many years; yet no matter how long he lives, if he cannot enjoy his prosperity and does not receive proper burial, I say that a stillborn child is better off than he. (NIV)

Some final remarks on the Gospel according to Matthew and teaching therein on Hell

I think there really are grounds for reconsidering our teaching on Gehenna. Matthew seems to particularly emphasise the fate of the hypocrite and the fruitless servant, not of masses of people who never had the chance to believe. Obviously, a study of the other gospels and the epistles is required, as well as a study of the context used by Jesus when he taught these things. There is definitely a case for eternal punishment, but on my study I think it is a lot less clear-cut than people believe.

I suppose people may say to me, "Why question the origins of Hell when it is obvious that many people, most of whom were more learned that you, have already studied these things and taught us their conclusions?" From what I've read there seems to be a good deal more controversy over the issue than simply accepting Scripture or not accepting Scripture, and accepting the opinions of scholars just because they studied at the right university would not be particularly wise.

Also, consider this: I used to often eat unusual things for breakfast - cake, for example. I know that's not a traditional choice, but I told myself that tradition meant nothing. Then a lecturer told us how it is best to eat complex carbohydrates rather than simple sugars for breakfast, because the sugar-rush caused a great deal of insulin to be released, which would eventually be resisted by the body and could develop to Type II diabetes. Guess what? I stopped having cake for breakfast. On this occasion, tradition seemed very wise indeed. But the trouble with tradition is that it's not always wise. I read a recent study that suggested most weaning patterns for babies may actually be incorrect as to the wisest foods to feed to babies. Tradition seems wrong on this count. I don't trust tradition. I'd rather learn carefully reasoned arguments with sensible conclusions than simply "this is what we've always believed".

Part 2 will deal with "the Kingdom of Heaven" as referenced in Matthew.

Please post any comments/opinions. I won't delete any unless they're spam, promise :)

A word of explanation

Hi guys,

Just wanted to make a few things clear about this blog.

When it started I was feeling glowingly evangelical and red hot for Jesus.

Then I had a crisis of faith. Fun. So basically, this blog is no longer glowingly evangelical or red hot for Jesus. It's more sulkily skeptical and prodding Jesus to get the truth. I'm still interested in doing some Scriptural analysis, but I'm afraid you'll now be subject to my scary honest opinion :)

I've actually done some study on Hell as I promised, or at least in the gospel of Matthew. Will type it up for you some time in the future.

*hugs*

Hell is murky!

I'm sorry, I know this blog was supposed to be about Bible study, but I thought I'd post a few more thoughts on Hell.

The thing that haunts me, even when I read an ANGRY website written by someone WELL-AQUAINTED with CAPS-LOCK, like Exposing those who Contradict by L Ray Smith is that his God is more loving than my God and his God is more powerful than my God.

I also sympathise with this:

An idea, which has terrified millions, claims that some of us will go to a place called Hell, where we will suffer eternal torture. This does not scare me because, when I try to imagine a Mind behind this universe, I cannot conceive that Mind, usually called "God," as totally mad. I mean, guys, compare that "God" with the worst monsters you can think of -- Adolf Hitler, Joe Stalin, that sort of guy. None of them ever inflicted more than finite pain on their victims. Even de Sade, in his sado-masochistic fantasy novels, never devised an unlimited torture. The idea that the Mind of Creation (if such exists) wants to torture some of its critters for endless infinities of infinities seems too absurd to take seriously. Such a deranged Mind could not create a mud hut, much less the exquisitely mathematical universe around us. - Robert Anton Wilson (source)

It seems to be that I could not find the God who created joy revolting, yet this is exactly how I feel about the cruelly vindictive God preached by so many evangelical Christians. A friend suggested to me that the question "How can a God of love send people to Hell?" is from the Devil and it shouldn't plague me. But I can't cast it out because the Devil has a point. I am repulsed by a God who would leave humanity in misery for eternity. I'm literally nauseated. The thought of such a God fills me with utter terror. "Perfect love casts out fear"? The thought that he'll be abandoning my friends, my housemates, my colleagues, my family - all from my loving Grandma to my adorable cousins - in shame and disgrace for eternity, even if it isn't literal burning pain, makes me not want to rush out and warn all them all to live a good life and worship him, but to spit in his face and say (with delicious irony) "to Hell with your worship!"

Of course I hate sin. I hate it from the time I was too preoccupied with stuff to remember to buy my sister's birthday present to the cruelty of Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Kim Jong Il and Pol Pot. I want to see sin ended. But it makes no sense that God is enraged, say, at the rapist, but that he'll still torture both rapist and victim for eternity in something that will make rape seem tame, if they don't both turn to him.

The curious thing is, I previously took refuge in annihilationism - the belief that the punishment for not following God is simply death. Which makes sense, because if you're not interested in God, it's sensible enough that he doesn't take you with him to eternity. And some people take refuge in the notion of C.S. Lewis - that those not with God are in a Hell of their own making, like the poor dwarves in The Last Battle who convinced themselves that the new Narnia was simply a stable. Which has rather bothered me because it showed that Aslan was not all powerful, and as I read more about the doctrine of universal reconciliation, I see that we are either preaching that God doesn't want to save everyone (meaning that God is not Love) or that God cannot save everyone (meaning that God is not all-powerful).

It's not that I don't believe in Free Will, it's simply that I believe that if God is truly Love then truly we all want to be saved. And if everyone wants to be saved, then either God can't or won't save them.

Which makes a pretty pathetic God.

So perhaps I'm not quite a believer in universal reconciliation yet... but I'm very drawn to the idea. When I think of the Gobbledygook gospel (see last post) that I find I've tried to believe, and of the God I believe I know, I find I'm much more receptive to the notion that eventually we will all be saved. Because I love the Sermon on the Mount - the 'Do not worry' passages always drew me from contemplating my bank balance to contemplating how I can best love God and love others. And I can't imagine Jesus saying this:

"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. Of course one day he'll burn the unrighteous in everlasting fire and torture them for all eternity, but just do as I say now. Be perfect, therefore, but certainly not in the way that your heavenly Father is perfect."

The Gobbledygook Gospel

I read an article about universal reconciliation (ie. the belief that everyone will eventually have eternal life) called "The Gobbledygook Gospel" and I couldn't help but identify with the sentiments found therein:

Here is what I was taught to be "the gospel" during my evangelical upbringing--Bible college included:

*God is Love...but more than that...He is Holy. And holiness is a quality in Him that, in a way, is opposite to love. This means (in a very real sense somehow) that He is also eternally vindictive and unforgiving toward those who are less than holy. So one day you will be conformed to His likeness, and you shall be holy just as He is, and not very loving toward imperfect people. BUT..you must be loving NOW, even
if that means you are being less than holy, or you won't make it to heaven. On the other hand, without holiness NO ONE shall see the Lord! (Yes, it's a...er...paradox, but just accept it in childlike faith, and stop intellectualizing so much!)

*God passionately and deeply loves everyone, but He plans to burn almost everyone alive for eternity simply because they failed to seek Him and find Him and love Him before it was forever too late. That is because the way is narrow and only a few "ever will" find it.

*As Christians we believe that the Lord is kind, gracious and merciful, and His love never fails. Nevertheless, He created human beings because He is a Great Gambler that delights in chancing the lives of His human offspring in His grand cosmic game of "Winners and Losers". Yes, He is also omniscient--but that is beside the point. Stop asking so many questions! Just realize that His purpose for calling people into being was to give them a chance to choose to learn to pronounce His name ("Lord Jesus Christ") correctly--and--to love and trust Him UNconditionally and wholeheartedly before He burns billions of them for eternity for having failed to do so by a given deadline.

*On the other hand, we Christians believe that God is SOVEREIGN and He can do whatever He pleases! If He has wanted to create billions of human beings and elect to love and save a few of them and trash and burn the rest forever, that is His business. He is not just "love"--He is HOLY. You had better worship and love Him anyway, if you know what is good for you! People who have been TRULY predestined for heaven and born again don't question God's sovereignty! On the other hand, we predestined ones are saved ONLY by grace APART from works. So if some people who are truly saved question God's sovereignty they will be forgiven, of course. Yes, this means that you may be "damned if you do, and damned if you don't" as the old saying goes. But don't worry about it much. Only a few will EVER be chosen (Hezekiah 13:13) but after all, this means that there's a remote possibility that you may be in the elect!

*Then again, we Christians are also "Semi-pelagian" in our understanding of the gospel. And what does this mean? This simply means that we believe that we cannot save ourselves, since the original sin of Adam and Eve renders us utterly depraved and powerless. Yet on the other hand, God has given us a free will so we can choose to rise above our depraved and evil state--and submit to him in obedient faith before it is forever too late. In other words, we've blended nicely together the theology of both Augustine and Pelagius. See how much more balanced our glad tidings is than than the teaching of those more extreme theologians? :-)

*Worry is a form of fear, and "perfect love casts out fear", and "those who fear have not been perfected in love." Bear in mind also that "he that loveth not knoweth not God, for God is love." So watch your step, buddy! JESUS said, "You shall be perfect even as your Father in Heaven is perfect." And John's first epistle states that he/she that sinneth is of the devil, and Revelation warns us that nothing unclean shall enter that city. (With streets of gold etc.) On the other hand, don't be nervous and worried. But do bear in mind that the fearful and unbelieving will have their part in the lake of fire for all eternity. Yes, we realize that this fate suggests that a God of love inflicts infinite pain on his cherished and finite creatures. But, it will probably be inflicted with "spiritual" fire, not literal. Isn't this comforting? :-)

*Jesus loves all the children of the world, but after they reach the age of accountability (which may be anywhere from 7 to 13) they too will be punished "forever"--with infinite pain--for not having made wise and timely choices.

*The church has been "called out" by God to go to heaven, and He has (er... reluctantly) destined the world for hell.

*Justice, like holiness is also the opposite quality to Love, and we must remember that God is not only love, He is also just. Therefore when He acts justly He behaves unlovingly, and when He behaves lovingly He behaves unjustly. That is why he MUST punish people for all eternity.

*Nevertheless, God is far better than any earthly father. He is far more loving and wise and compassionate than any mortal dad could ever be. And He is also more JUST than earthly fathers. He punishes HIS offspring for all eternity whereas earthy fathers do not, because they fall short of being as just as God is.

*Jesus prayed on the cross for His torturers "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do." But the Father knew His Son was wrong about that! After all, He remembered that they were "without excuse" (according to Romans 1). Therefore He ignored Jesus' prayer since it apparently was uttered in ignorance and motivated by a false sense of mercy. Ahem! Er, we won't go so far as to say that Jesus SINNED by praying contrary to His Father's will... Nevertheless, only those people who ASK for forgiveness in a wise and timely fashion (as we have done) will receive it!

*Jesus loves you sooooo much, but you'd better walk softly before the FATHER!!!

*Jesus is the nice and merciful Second Person of the Trinity, and the Father is First Person of the Trinity and the STERN and HOLY One.

*God was sooooo furious with Adam and Eve for sinning that He had to get blood out of someone! Therefore, in order to appease His righteous indignation He sent His Son to earth to be beaten to a pulp and mutilated instead of getting even with Adam and Eve and all their hopelessly sin-impaired posterity.

*God feels very offended because His delicate dignity has been insulted by all the human race who fail to worship Him because they are dead in trespasses and sins and utterly unable to seek or worship Him or to save themselves.


*At the same time, our Heavenly Father is so grand of heart and spirit that you can be sure that He UNDERSTANDS even your worst frailties. And He is the meekest and most gentle and sensible Person in the universe.

*God also has a rollicking good sense of humor! On the other hand, He disapproves of foolish talk and jokes and is watching you to see whether or not you will REPENT and start giving Him thanks! For it is also true that the Lord loves to be praised, encouraged, extolled, and worshipped, and He is VERY angry with people who ignore Him or worship Him in the incorrect manner. So you can forget about Hindus and Buddhists and Moslems and people outside of OUR correct NONdenomination going to heaven!!! Well, a few others might be there, and that is because perhaps IN THEIR HEARTS they were among the Lord's chosen. But it is probably best not to preach this publically, because it weakens the gospel.

*Also the Father's wrath is not really yet appeased by Jesus' death on the cross. And that is because He is still sooooo MAD because people who are "dead in trespasses and sins" have kept on sinning rather than turn to him because He has CLEARLY revealed Himself in the rocks and trees and birds and bees and sun, moon and stars!!! So at long last, 2000 years ago, He had to send His Son to die on the cross to save the world--although it was far too late to REALLY save it because myriad numbers of its inhabitants had already gone to hell. And all because they refused to respond to the rocks and trees etc. when they were fully capable of doing so, even though original sin had rendered them totally depraved and unable to seek God (necessitating that Christ come into the world? Aw, it's just another paradox that must be accepted in childlike faith. But that's no problem for us diligent and
stouthearted...and..."humble" ones! Right?)

*Salvation is totally a gift; you cannot earn or produce it by good works. On the other hand, my aunt Suzie died and went home to her "heavenly reward." And you will never receive your "heavenly reward" and will spend eternity in hell--unless you show GENUINE faith, as is validated by works of obedience. For faith without works is dead. Therefore, dying in sin is also dying in unbelief. However, God may be
merciful to some people who die in sin, but DON'T count on it-- especially with YOUR kind of sin!

*The Lord loves everyone unconditionally--even those whom He burns in hell for eternity for not having met certain conditions (as we did! :-)) before it was too late.

*Salvation means gift. Actually it means reward. On the other hand, it means gift. Yet in a real sense it also means reward. On the other hand salvation means rescue--not reward. But then again, YOU must...etc.etc..etc...or God is out of here forever, and your free gift is forfeit! REAL faith is shown by obedience! (Oh well, ahem! It is a great mystery. But try not to worry about it much. Just keep coming to the meetings and paying tithes faithfully and do as we say, and you'll probably be all right!)

*If we ask anything that is according to God's will, the Bible says that He hears us and that we have the petitions we have desired of Him. On the other hand, although the Bible says it is God's will that all people be saved and that we are to pray for their salvation, we also know that THIS prayer will NOT be granted. Not ever. After all, God is a Great Gambler at heart (even though He knows the future with absolute certainty) and He gave people "free will" so that they could seek Him and find Him before it's forever too late. Just as we ourselves have so wisely done? Well, no. That would mean that our wisdom has saved us, and that is unscriptural. Ahem! Er... well...uh....Actually, free will is another great mystery. Just accept this deep paradox in childlike faith and be glad that YOU are going to heaven. Once you are there, God will pull the plug on your memories of your dear grandmother who nurtured you sacrificially. Thus you can freely worship Him as He burns her alive with "spiritual" fire for eternity. And all because she failed do as we did--that is, to properly exercise her free will to choose Christ before it was too late.

*You shouldn't say "Good luck!" to people. That dishonors God. There's no such thing as chance or luck, for HE IS SOVEREIGN AND RULES OVER ALL AFFAIRS. On the other hand, many people will be lost for all eternity because they failed to recognize their "chance" to receive Jesus before it was forever too late. Come to Jesus while there is still a "chance!" Keep showing faith by your works of obedience, while there is a "chance"!

*People who commit suicide go to hell because they die before they have a "chance" to repent of their sin before their spirit leaves their body. So are you despairing to the point of wanting to take your own life? Don't risk it, buddy! (or sis!) If you commit suicide YOUR LOVING HEAVENLY FATHER WILL TEACH YOU WHAT *REAL* DESPAIR IS FOR ALL ETERNITY.
(But of course, He will always love you. :-))

*Because people have a free will, there is the "chance" that many will fail to choose Christ before it is too late.

*So you think you have been "once saved always saved", do you? People who have been TRULY saved don't...etc.etc..etc... Also, don't forget that backsliders are showing good evidence that they have not been truly saved, and if they DIE in that state, it doesn't look very hopeful. Don't you remember the Scripture that says, "They went out from us that it might be manifest that they were not of us"? (And according to most church tradition that means "they NEVER WILL be of us.")


*Our church is er...grace-oriented, and NOT legalistic. Therefore we don't preach publically about hell, even though billions of eternal destinies are at stake. LEGALISTS thunder the "hell fire and brimstone" message. But we grace-oriented Christians keep it on "back file" and gently teach and explain it in our new converts classes. Nowadays these are conducted in a "nonreligious manner"--even on hikes and fun outings as we fellowship around a cozy campfire. :-)

*Yes, I believe in an endless hell that awaits billions of people, and if you are committed to sound doctrine YOU will believe it too. On the other hand, if you come thundering hell fire and brimstone messages, you will NOT be welcome in our church. We believe in LOVE!

Ouch. So true.

You can but hope...

Chrissie told me yesterday that when you get to grips with Hell you either become a Universalist or an Evangelist.

I've found a couple of curious sites on the Universalist viewpoint:

Tentmaker and the rather more angry Exposing those who contradict.

Hmm. Reminds me of a line from The Sacred Diary of Adrian Plass aged 37 3/4 (the most beaten-up and well-thumbed book I own after my Youth Bible... there's no dilemma of faith so original that it hasn't already been chronicled in that hilarious book)... "He knows a different God to the one I know. His God's nice!"

Will be back with some more in depth Bible Study on the whole Hellish issue.

I believe in a thing called Love

I don't know if anyone has found this blog yet... other than spammers, naturlich... but hey.

The reason I haven't posted for a while (well, it feels like a while) is because I'm angsting.

Basically, a couple of years ago I had a major crisis of faith, mainly centred around the idea of Hell.

Then I attempted to get away from God and felt chased, caught, and loved into submission. I couldn't get over his awesome love and holiness.

And now... I'm having yet another crisis of faith, mainly centred around the idea of Hell.

Bah. Thing is, I'm a different girl now. I feel I've encountered God in so many ways. I know people who've been changed by his awesome power. I know that God loves. I read The Cross and the Switchblade (by David Wilkerson) and Run Baby Run (by Nicky Cruz) and I was struck by God's love towards the lost - David Wilkerson was called to minister to gangs in New York in the 1960s (what's he up to now? Will have to check) and he found teenagers who were caught up in evil - both sinned against and sinning - and explained God's love to them, and that Jesus could save them. Nicky Cruz was one of the people he ministered to. Wilkerson comments that it wasn't his own efforts that saved them - when he trusted God, then the transformation came. And Nicky Cruz, who hated everything and everyone, who was practically psychopathic - a hardened criminal - was changed by God. Run Baby Run doesn't read like West Side Story - death, fighting and blood was commonplace in gang life: killing wasn't a last resort. But Nicky Cruz was transformed. He learned how to love. He learned how to forgive.

But here's the rub - Hell.

I don't believe in Hell.

Or more accurately, I am trying vigorously not to believe in Hell. It's vastly inconsistent with God's character. As I read the Bible I see that his judgement is characterised with discipline - as a loving father smacks a naughty child*, not a hateful dictator who condemns every disobedient soul with torture.

Hell is a really stupid idea. I mean, what's the point? So God doesn't want someone to come to Heaven. Why torture them? Why torment them? Why do this for all eternity? Why not just let them die?

Hell is cruel. Even if Hitler went to Hell, imagine he were to be punished for everything he did - to the Jews, the gypsies, the homosexuals and the people with disabilities that he imprisoned. To the countries that Germany occupied. He could easily be in Hell for millions of years to add up all that he needs to be punished for.

But it wouldn't be forever.

Hell is a scare tactic. If I told you I loved you, then said that you had to come live with me, make my dinner, tidy my room, do my coursework - or I'd firebomb your house - you'd be severely in doubt as to the sincerity of my love. And you'd hardly turn up, grateful to have been spared the wrath of my firebomb.

OK, I understand that God is Lord. He is the Potter, we are the Clay. Clay has no choice, Potter has choice. Potter's allowed to torment Clay for all eternity if he wants.

But why would he want to? If I loved guinea pigs, I could maybe breed them and look after them. If then a few guinea pigs had some kind of mental disorder that made them violent, and made them ignore all my attempts to care for them, I could separate them, take them to the vet, or even euthanise them. I could decide to believe that they were inherently evil and torment them, but I doubt anyone would believe that I loved guinea pigs, and the RSPCA would have things to say to me. I'd just be being needlessly cruel.

I don't know... I've read a lot of stuff the past few days on whether Hell exists and what it is and have decided that I may not be Evangelical** after all.

I'm reading the Bible a lot and will have to look through some commentaries. I'm praying to find out the truth. I'm feeling conflicted. I can't serve a God who created Hell. I'm really hoping that it turns out to be a dreadful misunderstanding.

So yes, will be back, hopefully with some conclusions later.

* I don't think smacking is bad, so long as it's done in love and not anger. Child calls sibling bad names: smack child to show child it is wrong. Child bugs you when you have had a hard day: don't smack child, it's not their fault. Granted I don't think it's the best method of discipline, but you get the idea.
** Evangelical: someone who believes that the Bible is entirely correct, true, and directly inspired by God.