It has always amazed me how people can switch religious beliefs so easily and accept everything taught to them on the other side as absolute truth, when they once believed they were absolute lies!!!  Why are we so fickle? Why is it that we are so desperate to belong that we have to buy everything we are told and drop our true convictions and our ability to reason?

I see it with all faiths, but I’m especially dumbfounded when I see it with Atheists, who insist upon evidence before they can proclaim anything to be true!  Funny how there is absolutely NO evidence for the theory of evolution (hence it is still called a theory), but everyone who moves to the other side of faith in God adopts this theory as golden and goes to great lengths to defend and promote it.

As Christians, we do the same thing.  I know why there’s a need to define statutes. Not least so that we can know those who believe exactly what we believe, and label those who don’t accept everything we believe as heretics to be avoided.  We’ve been warned of the many false prophets and teachers teaching false doctrines, so we agreed on the truth, and are unable to tolerate alternative understanding of these beliefs or even new revelations!  This is why there are so many denominations, sects and cults, because we switch off our spiritual gauge and depend on others to tell us what to believe.

One of those things we have been taught to accept without question is the infallibility of the Bible, as the Word of God.  However, if the first Christians (Acts 11:26) didn’t have the Bible, and didn’t even have a holy Book, just the gospel that they received from the Apostles, do you think they would call what we now know to be the Bible as the complete inerrant word of God?  Consider also that when the converted Jews were trying to impose circumcision and other Jewish laws on the Gentiles who had believed the Gospel (and were now just as Christian as the converted Jews), the Believers had their very first meeting on the matter of what every Christian should hold dear, and what we should not be burdened with. This meeting is recorded in Acts 15.

At this meeting, this was what they concluded as applicable to all Believers:

“For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well” (Acts 15:28-29).

It is reasonable to say that even this list was reconsidered by the Church, as they grew in understanding of what was clean and unclean.  Consider Paul’s teaching in Romans 14 about strong and weak faith, and how we are free to eat anything (as long as we do not cause others, who believe they’ve been sacrificed to idols or are unclean, to stumble). But his teaching about sexual immortality should also show that that is not a weak or strong faith issue, but a fundamental principle to be upheld by all believers (1 Cor 6:18).

Christians were not compelled to abide by the Torah, as many of the converted Pharisees pushed for. Paul’s ministry to the Gentiles saw him continually fighting this battle of renewing the minds of his Jewish brothers and sisters (Read Galatians 3).  But he did say to Timothy that all scriptures are inspired by God and profitable for instruction (2 Tim 3:16), so he wasn’t advocating that it be disregarded…just understood in light of the Gospel and teachings of Jesus.  As you can imagine, Paul never dreamed that his writings would become part of a collection that would later be termed “the Word of God”.

Who does the Bible say the Word of God is?  JESUS and no other (1 John 1:1).  To say that the Bible is the infallible word of God is the heresy (but I won’t stone or reject you for believing that).  The Bible compiles the testimonies of others who were inspired by God to write for the edification of Believers, and to carry on and protect the Jewish history and tradition.  The Roman Catholic Church felt the need to seal the Bible’s authority to teach Christians our faith in Jesus by canonizing it (rejecting what they believed to be false testimonies).  I see the wisdom in this, and uphold the Bible as sacred.

The Bible’s authority is built on the authority of the Church.  But the Word of God is a living Being that once became flesh. This is the Biblically sound doctrine.

Believing that Jesus is the Word of God and not the Bible has never caused me to reject the Bible.  It has only allowed me to better understand it and allow the Holy Spirit to lead me into all truth as Jesus said He would (John 16:13).

This teaching about the Bible and several other teachings that have been passed on by tradition (and do not even have Biblical support) are accepted by Christians, depending on their particular denomination as the Gospel Truth! The Gospel Truth is the message that Jesus preached, that His disciples were sent forth to preach, so that all who believe may be filled with the Spirit of God – and would need no man to teach them (I John 2:27).

To all who believe the Gospel, which is that God sent His beloved Son to die on a Cross to save them from eternal death, this is what Jesus says:

“If ye love Me, keep My commandments. And I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter, that He may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of Truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth Him not, neither knoweth Him: but ye know Him; for He dwelleth with you, and shall be in you” (John 14:15).

The following two tabs change content below.
"Youthful humanitarian and passionate change agent with a thirst for love and God..." I run Fair Life Africa Foundation, a not-for-profit organisation working to empower people for a fairer life. Learn more at I love to write and blog at, where my posts have been previously published.

Latest posts by Ufuomaee (see all)

  • Avatar

    I say this.

    June 12, 2016
      • Avatar

        lol but I have empowered you.. Just go ahead and served your readers… Go on, you can do it…

        June 12, 2016
          • Avatar

            AUNTY AUNTY!! Go to that link and copy the emoji from there 😀

            June 16, 2016
  • Avatar

    You are quite wrong about a few things here, Ufuoma.

    To begin with, the early Christians did have “holy books”. They did have literature that were recognized to be sacred and holy and inviolable. They were not bound together as the books we have today are bound into one called the Bible, but they were known. What I mean is that there was a canon. It existed before Jesus came into the world as our Savior. It was known to the apostles. It was known to the early Christians. And it was known to people who were either interested in or committed to the religion of the Temple then, for example, the Ethiopian eunuch who was reading Isaiah.

    Jesus quoted out of it and so did his apostles and Paul in his writings. It was not unknown or optional. The canon was held sacred.

    When Paul preached in Berea, the believers there were noted for being more noble than the ones at Thessalonica from where Paul came to them. Their nobility was illustrated in Acts 17:11 where they were said to “search the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so”. In other words, the words of even the apostles needed to be verified and held up by the Canon they knew or else they would be rejected. This is what they were called ‘noble’ for. That is very significant.

    Even Paul did know that he was writing Scripture. He was not the only one who treated his writings like they were Scripture, Peter spoke of them as Scripture as well when he said that some people mishandled the things Paul wrote the same way they mishandled “the rest of the Scriptures”. Again, that is very significant. Paul’s own perception of his writings was shown in his commands that the churches who received his letters should exchange them among themselves as they would other Scriptures to edify them all.

    Furthermore, it is actually too simple to say that Christians were not required to abide by the Torah. Rather, the question that faced the Church in those days was what exactly was the relationship of Jesus Christ to the Old Covenant. How were they to deal with the Scriptures now that Christ had fulfilled the demands of the Law for us? That was the point of the New Testament.

    Paul and his fellows labored to explain the Torah in the Light of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. That was how they gained new understanding of the Bible as it existed then. Now that Jesus had died for our sins, for example, the demands of the Law for all manner of sacrifice and propitiation for our sins were no longer applicable. Our sins had been fully and finally paid for. Now that the Holy Spirit had been poured out into our lives as God’s Seal of Salvation and the New Covenant, there was no longer any need for circumcision as a testimony to our pact with God, for another example. And so on.

    The Bible is completely and totally inerrant. But it is not to be read any which way a person pleases. Itself says that it does not lend itself to private interpretation, that is, the Bible does not submit to personal idiosyncrasy in interpretation. It immediately breaks out of any bonds put upon it. Which is why many people who wish it could say this but not that end up screaming about how it is so contradictory. It simply does not yield to human mastery. It forces the human intellect to yield to it instead.

    To further explain, that part you mentioned about strong and weak faith is a common error. The reason it is common is that we humans know that, as Christ put it, “strait is the gate and narrow is the way that leads to eternal life”, and we have this compassion and need for one another that makes us take everything that resembles a concession to our weaknesses in the Bible as an oasis in the desert. But when you take what Paul said there with the rest of the letter to the Romans and the whole Bible, all of a sudden, it doesn’t seem very likely anymore that he was saying that you should accommodate weak faith in the sense we often see it.

    In a sense, Paul was being sarcastic. He essentially said, “does having great faith mean that you can eat whatever you please without thought? Does it mean that you have risen high above any need for reason and compassion? Even though, for example, idols are nothing, do we not know that idols are devils, that the things sacrificed to them are things consecrated to devils? How can you because you have great faith find it comfortable to eat at the table of devils and still come to the table of Christ? Your great faith is mere foolishness.”

    There are many other things to learn like that from the Bible. There is no error in it, just big puzzles which force us to stretch ourselves mentally. In this stretching, we grow to become more and more like Christ. Because it is as our thinking patterns, our philosophies and ideologies adapt to Christ that we ourselves become like him.

    Let me stop at this point. At least, for now.

    June 12, 2016
      • Avatar

        1. Again, you are quite wrong. As I already told you, Peter himself spoke of Paul’s writings as Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). So, in their days, they knew what the canon was and witnessed it materialize. Whereas a council was inaugurated in later years to ostensibly canonize the Scriptures, a canon already existed prior. That council became necessary when very deep controversies especially relating to the deity of Christ came into view and there arose much ado about who was to be believed and what authorities should be accepted in the church. But prior to that, including during the time of the apostles themselves, the Church knew exactly what literature was true and sacred. As a matter of fact, Paul labored hard to “close the canon” with his own writings. In one letter, he laid powerful curses on anyone who taught a gospel that contradicted what himself and the other apostles taught (Galatians 1:8-9). In another, he said that there was no other foundation that needed to be laid except the foundation the apostles among whom he was counted laid which is Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:20, 1 Corinthians 3:10-11).

        In other words, there is nothing to be added, no new revelation to be given about Christ. It was finished in the apostles. That is actually why there is no apostolic ministry surviving today. We are merely to walk in the revelation that has been given. Any new additions today carry a curse laid by the authority of the apostles through Paul, Peter and John, at least (Galatians 1:8-9; 2 Peter 3:1,3; Revelation 22:18).

        Again, the first believers were aware and were fully deliberate in their creation and construction of the Canon that the Church later accepted in the midst of crises of doctrines.

        2. How do you hold something both sacred and violable or susceptible to error?

        3. The same argument for the inspired authorship of the Bible is the argument for the inspired compilation of it. The instant one is doubted, so is the other. If God could inspire fallible men to write inerrantly, he must be able to inspire fallible men to compile inerrantly as well.

        As for there being a book version of Jesus, our Lord himself was the one who said that the Scriptures were written of him (John 5:39, Luke 24:44).

        4. Here, I was countering what you said about Paul not knowing that he was writing Scripture. That was wrong. And I have shown you how. The subjection of the spirit of a prophet to himself only helps my case. It means that Paul was aware of what he was doing as he did it. God does not turn us into zombies in order to use us to do things we are ordinarily naturally incapable of.

        5. That is one witness in the Scriptures and unless you are insistent on considering it your preferred witness, you must know that it is of one with others like Luke 24:44. The old testament teaches us of Christ. Alone, it is but a shadow without clear features. In the New testament, it is fleshed out. But both work together to give us a full, rounded view of Christ. That is why it is dangerous to hold such a belief as you do.

        7. That is quite an interesting thing to say. Even if I did not have private correspondence with you, I would wonder why anyone would assume that with my online conversing behavior I simply say what I have been taught. I say what I say and believe what I believe because I have personally proved it. I would go even further to say that in my personal salvation experience, I have walked alone more than I have walked with companions because I would not rely on other people’s ideas.

        Besides all that, I have shown you how your argument is wrong. It is very dangerous to think that you can believe in Christ and walk worthy of him while doubting the very Scriptures that reveal him to you.

        8. First, what it has to do with the infallibility of Scriptures is to show you that there are no errors, rather there are puzzles that force us to expand our thinking to understand Christ.

        Second, another way to take what Jesus said is this: faith is not measured in sizes. If tiny faith can do great things, then the question is not what size faith anyone has but whether one has faith at all?

        9. Again, the point is that it isn’t what size or type of faith you have but whether you have faith at all. Faith in Christ leads us to behave in discernible ways. If we are not behaving like that, we cannot say it is because our faith is great or small, it is because our claim to faith is a lie.

        10. Wrong again. Whether or not the Scriptures are infallible is a matter that is not subject to personal opinion. You either live under the authority of the Scriptures and please the God who is so magnanimous and so great as to communicate his thoughts perfectly and unhindered through ordinary men like us or else you do not and thus displease him.

        June 13, 2016
          • Avatar

            I’m going to read your response comprehensively after now but unless there is something in it that I have not made a substantial and clear response to already, I won’t be responding to it not least because you also wish to close the discussion yourself and, additionally, I do get tired of repeating myself sometimes. But before I go on to read it, there is something I must address:

            “…the truth is plain for me to see, and such adamant denial of what is evidently true to all would have to be down to a serious delusion…”

            The above is a quote from your latest response, Part One specifically. You have expressed this sentiment or something like it several times in the course of our acquaintance both in our private correspondence and in our public discussions, the latest of which have been in the thread where we discussed Double Standards and now here. I often hold back from calling people out on comments like this because I want to accommodate them and give them time to self-correct. It’s like what I said elsewhere about pulling my punches on this site and elsewhere. I choose not to do so because when I respond to it, I’m not reputed to be very kind about it.

            Why do you think that you are the one who sees the truth here? That I – or really anybody else opposing your point of view – is really denying the truth? Why do you believe that you are on the side of the majority or that the majority is on your side? Or that it matters how many people agree with you?

            Granted that I speak with great certainty about things myself, I do so because I have rigorously tested the ideas I hold. It is partly why I am never afraid of debate. I know what I know and I know what I don’t know. The proof of my confidence is in my readiness for testing. I am willing to be challenged. I am willing to be measured. I am not only ready for it, I deliberately provoke it when I can because I love the truth and want to make sure that I’m living in it at all times.

            What is the proof of your own confidence? Why do you take issue with challenge? You once described my challenge as “trying to make it seem” something or other about you? It is not about you really, Ufuoma. It is not, I promise. The issue is what is true and what is false, what is right and what is wrong, and, because we are Christians, what is consistent with Christ and what is not.

            Rather than see obstinacy in a counter-argument, why do you not see evidence of error or the lack thereof? Rather than see denial, why do you not see evidence of ignorance or the lack thereof? Otherwise, all you really see is something you dislike and don’t want to deal with. That is especially problematic if you are a teacher in the Church.

            Remember those Church leaders you always take issue with? This behavior of yours is much like theirs. You get dogmatic about the things you believe and find it hard to brook disagreement and debate. Make peace with the fact that nobody has to agree with you and you’ll soon start to see where you yourself are getting it wrong and start to mend. When you do, your own confidence will be built and when you speak again, whether people love you or hate you, they will start to listen because there is truth in your words.

            Again, as I said before, anyone may wish to turn these words around on me because I have gained a reputation here for holding my own views with unrepentant conviction and brooking no disagreement as well.

            First, part of that reputation is only malicious. I am not unreceptive of contrary views. I accord each view due respect and examine them with all the respect I expect and hope mine will be too. So, I do not dismiss any view or project myself as being the only one who can see the truth. I expect others to be able to as well. If I didn’t, I wouldn’t be able to interrogate their views properly.

            Second, with each experience and debate I have had, I have grown in confidence in my knowledge of the truth. That makes me speak with conviction. I don’t know what I know merely from reading a lot but by interrogating every idea I come across and trying to practice what I believe is true. If any idea fails to hold up under the weight of debate and practical application, I eliminate it from my philosophy. I can’t therefore appear other than confident in debate.

            If you believe these two to be the case with you, then ignore my words and forgive my presumption. If not, perhaps, accept the service I have done you even if you find it a tad distasteful.

            Finally, your appeal to being in the majority is really a problem. When I got on this platform, I was treated like the Messiah for a little bit. It wasn’t long before people became dubious about me and now some are openly hostile toward me. What do you think changed? Me? I never did. I came on here to challenge immoral philosophies. I have kept right on doing that. The thing is that people love you when you are helping them beat something or someone they dislike even when they are just like the enemy you’re helping them against. If you fight for right, for truth and for Christ, then soon your own sword will turn on them and then they will want to kill you too and will soon be hailing anyone who “stands up to you”. This was why Jesus ran from people who wanted to take him by force and make him a king. You must remember that it wasn’t that long after that many of those same people were chanting “Crucify Him” and jeering at him on the Cross. Why on earth would anyone walking the path of the Cross with Christ care for popularity and appeal to majority at any point?

            Looking to the Crowd for reassurance, counting the likes and the “hails” will almost always mislead you about what is right and what is wrong. In fact, in our days, the very same days of which Jesus said that the love of many will wax cold because iniquity will abound, this is the worst time to judge right and wrong by popularity. Not that the crowd will always be wrong but they can be and that is why you should never appeal to them.

            I’m done. Going to read your response now.

            June 13, 2016
          • Avatar

            Wow. Ufuoma, I honestly thought I’d read you rehash everything you’d said before and go to bed. Now I’m glad you didn’t.

            First, about the great and little faith, you did good, very good. Jesus did speak of great faith and little faith. However, in neither case did he make concessions for it (in the case of little faith) nor did he ignore other requirements for it (in the case of great faith). It’s in itself a big discussion, so I will leave it out in my response.

            About the other things you have said, you are stretching yourself and that I can be part of. I can stretch too.

            But your response is really long and you have demanded more from me than I was thinking I would have to give. So I won’t respond right now. That will probably be tomorrow.

            June 14, 2016
          • Avatar

            I said nothing about “strong delusion”. My post did not address anything referring to it.

            I did not take it up privately with you because this is a matter like Peter’s behavior of which Paul spoke in Galatians 2. Other people are listening to you, Ufuoma. If it was merely a private failing, it would be dealt with privately.

            Even were it true what Buzz Lightcentury said about me, does pointing out a failing of my own eliminate yours? Is it not better practice to learn if you do have a failing and correct it? Still, it was false. But I told him so on the same thread so its ringing true to you means nothing to me if you did not account for my response to him as well.

            In connection, I hardly ever say things without offering proof of them. If I told A that she was not paying attention, did I fail to demonstrate how she was not? That would have been a failure then. The same applies to your other counter-accusations.

            Managing people’s feelings is something I have indicated several times, especially to you, that I have no intention of doing. On Nnanyielugo’s thread about What Kind Of Christians we have today, I said that I chose to be offensive for a reason. It was a deliberate choice, not a lack of social etiquette. In other words, I simply chose not to care about tact. If that upsets you, more’s the pity.

            Again, you fall for the very thing I warned you about. I said it was not about you but you couldn’t help reading a curse directed at you into my response to your post. That is actually the third time you did such a thing and right after a warning not to make yourself the focus of these discussions.

            Again, not about me and not about you. It’s always going to be just about Christ and what is consistent with him. You will never find me bending the knee to any idea that is inconsistent with him regardless who champions it or how it is offered. On the contrary, I will always be up in arms against every idea that stands against the knowledge of Christ.

            I’m not sure that there is anything I can say to the idea that an argument you have labored to make to persuade people to believe that the Bible is not 100% reliable and trustworthy (still wondering how you can trust something that can be erroneous) is actually common sense. I’m certain, at least, that if you truly believed that the unreliability of the Bible is easy to prove, you would already have done so and not resorted to kind of appeals you’re making. As a matter of fact, when I respond to your latest arguments on the matter, it will be my last on the issue. I have no interest in red herrings and straw man arguments. And I really don’t care to have anything further read into things I say.

            I think that the best anyone can do is present an argument. People may listen and buy it. Or they may not. In the end, that it is heard should be the only goal a person has. Or else we will turn into monsters like Adolf Hitler Stalin, Chairman Mao, Nero and every other person out there who cannot abide being challenged. This is what I stand by. I urge you to consider standing by the same.

            I will make no further response on any of this besides the one I will make to your numbered arguments.

            June 14, 2016
          • Avatar

            1. (a) There is no question of the privileged position of the believer. But Jesus himself who established the Church had very many disciples (the number ran as high as 500 at his death, according to Paul; and we know that there were 120 gathered together at the upper room in Jerusalem on the Pentecost) but of them he chose only twelve to be apostles. As time went on, more apostles were added in that generation by the Holy Spirit including Paul, Barnabas, Andronicus and a woman named Junia, at least.

            The work of the apostles was not just to take the gospel to new places. They also structured the Faith. Nobody else had that authority. That is why they called the foundation of the Church the foundation of the apostles and the prophets. The prophets. That is why Paul had his apostleship attacked and had to defend it too. We may all of us be God’s oracles but he selected some people specially for the duty of filling up the canon, of clearly structuring the revelation of Jesus Christ by which the Church was to live and walk.

            The sense in which we are all oracles is the sense in which we are all responsible to carry this revelation to the unbelieving world, to those still unsaved. We are not conduits of new revelation.

            (b) The Bible itself answers this. The fact that we do not have Junia’s apostolic writings if she did produce any, the fact that there may truly have been a gospel of Philip, the fact that we may have lost perhaps as much as half of Paul’s writings does not mean that we lost the fullness of the revelation of Christ in whole or in part. Look at 2 Peter 2 and Jude. At least one commentator thinks they copied each other or copied from the same source because of the great similarity of the text.

            That is not all. How many things were duplicated in the gospels? Again, in many of Paul’s letters he replicated the same teaching. To put together the sacred literature that we have, we didn’t need the same repeated over and over ad infinitum ad nauseum. We needed representative samples that were similar enough to overlap and different enough to each give us new information that would enrich us in the knowledge of Jesus Christ. This is why one scholar thought that the so-called contradictions in the four gospels are actually proof that they are accurate rather than erroneous. Interestingly, the man shares sentiments that can easily be thought to be like yours. He says that he does not consider the Bible literally inerrant.

            (c) We will talk about sacred etc in #2. For now, we will address whether Paul was talking about John 3:16 or he was talking about the body of knowledge about Jesus Christ that he and others taught.

            Paul and his fellows taught a particular message. That message was Jesus Christ. That means that it was a big gospel, not something narrow at all. Even if all they said was Jesus Christ died for you and me to be saved, they would immediately have to tell an ignorant man who Jesus Christ is and why his death should mean anything to him and again what he is being saved from and why he needs to be saved from it and…. That is proof that the body of knowledge called the Gospel or the Good News is vast. It was what, as I said before, the apostles labored to document before they passed. That is why what he said applies to the whole Scriptures. One addition to everything that has been written, any so-called new revelation apart from what they had received is under a curse.

            If anyone contends the Gospel at all, they would necessarily be contradicting something that Paul and the others wrote and by extension something in the Torah.

            (d) There is no question whether other Christians will build on the foundation that is Jesus Christ. There is only one whether there is any more foundation-laying going on. There is none. Only the apostles had the divine task to lay a foundation upon which everybody (including themselves) may build.

            What may be built on that foundation may be fallible, there is clear revelation regarding what will happen to such structures. But the foundation itself cannot be fallible. If it was, no matter how perfect and infallible what is built on it is, it will be lost wherever the foundation fails in perfection.

            Needless to say, if the apostles’ work of laying that foundation in their epistles had been less than perfect, our whole Christianity would be shot to hell. Thank God that it was not. There is no error in the apostolic writings that makes our footing in the Faith of Jesus Christ unsure.

            (e) So how are we to know which revelations are true? Against what shall we test them for reliability? According to the same verse in John, it is against the Gospel of Jesus Christ which the apostles captured in writing that we are to test them. If they fail to agree with that Gospel then, of course, they are false. And if they agree with it, then, of course, they are not new for it would still be the same Gospel the apostles preached. As the Inerrant Bible says, the Spirit is one. He will not lead the apostles one way and us another. One Spirit means one message, one Gospel, one Revelation, the perfection and inerrancy of unity.

            (f) Let us grant then that the curses were limited to the book of Revelation. What then does the book reveal to which any addition attracts a curse? Does anyone with any learning in the book of Revelation fail to appreciate that that was the whole story of the Bible, of the message of Jesus Christ, of the ministry of the Holy Spirit and the apostles and the hope of the saints, pressed into one book? What applies to the book of Revelation applies to the whole Bible for one reason to which there is really no need to add another: The Book of Revelation of Jesus Christ as given to the apostle John is a microcosm of the whole Bible.

            Therefore, common to inerrantists or not, it is no error to say that any additions to the revelation of Jesus Christ already given through the prophets and apostles by whose hands God penned the Bible would bring in full all the curses applied in John’s book of the Revelation.

            (g) Let us consider then what Paul said to see if it is good grounds to believe that if Paul were here today he would be aghast that we put so much confidence in his writings.

            He said to test everything. I have shown that what must be tested must have a standard against which it must be tested. I have shown that in Paul’s days the apostles’ message had to have the backing of the Scriptures as they were known then to be acceptable. And where they stretched that canon, there was the power they had from God to confirm their words with unmatched signs and wonders and miracles.

            The apostles passed all the tests in their person and in their writings. Nobody else did. Therefore, their testimony is accepted inviolate and inviolable. This is why we have confidence in his writings and others.

            2. It is hardly simple if you had to go to lengths to show it.

            I honestly find it really hard to see how I can work this one out. The words themselves have done all the work. You consider something impossible to violate but errant. The mind boggles. Then you use marriage as an illustration. I agree that marriage as a principle is both inviolable and inerrant. The Bible says as much. It is people who treat it as though it were not. Things that cannot marry are forced to marry but God essentially says, no, that doesn’t work. Things that can marry are forced apart. Again, God says, no, that doesn’t work either.

            But because we insist, we break ourselves and other people trying to force things. Marriage is still not violated or shown erroneous in any way. Rather, we violate ourselves and damage ourselves trying to make it serve us as we wish.

            To make this clearer: marriage is not wrong in being meant for one man and one woman, for being the context in which kids are raised, for being the means of preserving the sanctity and productivity of society, for being the most effective way that two sexually-enabled adults can serve God and live fruitful lives. There is no error in any of that. If marriage fails, it does not really, we fail at it. We are the ones who refuse to respect it as it should be. So, sex outside of marriage causes damage to the people having it and other people around them; kids raised outside a sacred home of mother and father are damaged; people without the love and tender care, compassion and commitment of a partner of opposite gender go about emotionally crippled and psychologically exhausted. Etc etc. Marriage is the perfect, inviolate, inviolable, inerrant answer to all that. That we fail to handle it properly does not make marriage wrong or erroneous. It makes us foolish.

            3. (a) The Bible itself says that it was God-inspired or God-breathed. That is the basis of those arguments. To somehow imply that God would inspire something erroneous to guide the steps of his people in a confused and confusing world is incredible, to put it mildly. As I said to you before, the appeal to size of Faith is rather foolish. Faith is as faith does. Little or great, faith is always recognizable in people who have it. So, that appeal is counter-intuitive.

            And why should we agree that the Bible is what you say it is? Because you make no arguments? Or because YOU are infallible? Don’t you find your particular confidence in the infallibility of your position ironic?

            Again, “trustworthy”, “sacred” and “authoritative” are all words that I’m sure linguists other than my amateur self would be quite puzzled to find put on the other side from “inerrant”. Why would anyone trust something that might be erroneous? Why would they hold it sacred or trust to its authority? The mind boggles.

            (b) I cannot speak for your appreciation of intelligence, Ufuoma. So, I don’t know what you expect me to do with it when you throw it into an argument. It does not in any way show that your arguments are logical and sensible or that mine are not. I can no more make sense of it than I can make sense of how the color blue must look to your eyes or feel to your mind.

            Regarding the argument in question here, it is up to you to make of Jesus’s statement what you will. I certainly offered it for you to do precisely that. However, I know that he said many times that the Scriptures were written about him. It would seem then that if you wanted to get to know him as a person, the Scriptures are a good way to go. In so far as a book can be a version of a person, that means the Bible is unequalled in that regard.

            But…believe what you please, Ufuoma. You are welcome to your beliefs.


            June 15, 2016
          • Avatar

            4. Really, why should I believe that he was oblivious? Because you prefer that I do? If you fail to see how Paul was not oblivious of his role in writing the Scriptures, the fault is not necessarily with me. Have I been unclear in my arguments? Have I failed in any way to provide examinable evidence? It is up to you to do what you can with the arguments and proofs I have offered. What you choose to see is not necessarily something I can help.

            And why exactly would the Spirit of God not lead Paul to write about a cloak he wanted brought to him? Why is it far-fetched to believe that he was in total agreement with the Holy Spirit to write every single thing he did? Is it all just because you don’t like it? Why should I care about your preferences, Ufuoma?

            The beauty of the Scriptures is in their fallibility? Pray tell how. Or are we talking about the kind of beauty where I thought that the weird way my ex’s ankle turned was so cute to me at the time? The mind boggles.

            5. Good. Then, you noticed that there was at least a seeming contradiction between the two, didn’t you? THAT, Ufuoma, was the point. I told you of puzzles in the Scriptures, did I not?

            Remember, you’re the one who said you’re confused here. Of course, I know what we’re discussing. We do? You and I agree on the authority of the Scriptures?

            That is what we call a straw man argument, only this one is ingenious. Now you insinuate that my arguments are attacking the argument that only Jesus is infallible. That is pretty amazing. All you had to do was completely ignore that all this time you had been arguing that the only source of information we have on Infallible Jesus is not reliable. Then you create a whole new argument that you claim you have been making that Jesus is the only one who is infallible and then accuse me of attacking it. It’s incredible.

            Jesus was never going to be on earth indefinitely. He wasn’t around before he came in the flesh to tell the world about himself. He wasn’t here after. He needed and prepared and used men both before and after to preserve a reliable testimony about himself for a light to guide the world. Therefore, the media he used had to be completely reliable and infallible, just like himself, I might add.

            So, how exactly am I arguing against his infallibility now? Is he incapable, in his infallibility, of making a testimony of himself infallible as well? And you accuse “inerrantists” of going to lengths to prove the unproveable!

            7. (a) So, you’re no longer attributing my arguments to something I mindlessly adopted from my teachers? 🙂 You made a hasty statement and a very ill-advised one just to prove a point. As a matter of fact, you’ve made a lot of them in this discussion. You cannot dismiss my arguments on the claim that I just repeated what I had heard from my teachers. You have to do the actual work of discrediting the arguments, if at all possible, on their own merit.

            Needless to say, I don’t believe the spirit that told you such a thing. So far, it is failing to prove that it is of God because it asks us to doubt the one source we have for information on Jesus Christ and rely on things or ideas or something that we cannot hold to any standard. If you are comfortable living that way, while I’m grieved that you should be, I really cannot take it away from you. I just worry about where it will take you in the end. But, it is all your choice and not mine to make for you.

            Yes, I skipped #6. For that one, you had said “no argument here”, so there was nothing more to say.

            (b) Of course I have argued, that is what it means to show something. I used my arguments to show you how you were wrong. It was up to you to show me that I was wrong too. Did you expect me to show you some other way? And, as I told you before, that you say it does not make it so. I have no reason to believe that I have argued “errantly”. You need to use better arguments to demonstrate to me how I have and then I will either be reasonable enough to accept correction or else I will be too obtuse to listen but at least the witness will be in the quality of the arguments you make.

            Oh my! Wow! Lol! That’s quite a mouthful! Not only have I argued my case – and that was apparently the wrong thing to do – and argued it “errantly, I have also shown a lack of understanding of the real issues at hand, I idolize the Bible and I’m somehow stagnated in my growth in the knowledge of God too as a result. And all of this is true because Infallible You said it and you cannot stoop so low as to prove a single thing you say. Just the fact that you say it makes it true. I hope you understand that that is precisely the meaning of arrogance. It isn’t the buzzword people use when they feel intimidated by someone else. It actually has a meaning and you just typified it.

            8. (a) I confess that I don’t know how this attestation is not the same as the claim that there was an error. When you said that they grew in inspiration, were you not suggesting that what the said at earlier stages of growth may have been erroneous and they learned better later? Was that not the point you were making?

            And how are we to know which things they said were said or written when? The Bible was not arranged chronologically. Are we merely to rely on this nebulous “ministry of the Holy Spirit” as a separate agency from the Bible? Why should we trust it either?

            (b) Not addressing this as I earlier said.

            9. Not addressing this either as I earlier said.

            10. Again, “sacred” and “trustworthy” but still susceptible to error. The mind boggles.

            So, now, Faith requires instruments of uncertainty. That is interesting. Jesus himself said, “if you will not believe my words, believe them for my works’ sake.” It seems to me that God wants us to walk by faith in things we cannot see drawing confidence from things which we have seen so far. Or else how would we even believe in Jesus Christ at all? He never should have come to earth at all. It is unreasonable, after all, to demand that a person believe something that he cannot even begin to imagine or to relate to something in his experience.

            God did say that he would write his laws upon our heart. That much I know. That much the Scriptures themselves (which, according to you should not be completely trusted) say. But that he would not write them in a book is entirely of your own fabrication. There is not one single place in the Scriptures where God said that he would not write his laws in a book in the New Covenant.

            However, the meaning of his words in the place you quoted is significant. God said essentially that he would put his laws inside us. This is true. We received the Holy Spirit who is responsible to make us like Christ. But we were also told in the Bible (which, according to you, we should not trust completely for accuracy) that we become like Christ as we look into the Word of God, which Peter said that we should desire earnestly so that we can grow by it.

            Granted that we have urges inside of us to behave like Christ now that we are born anew, we also still have the urges of the flesh and the struggle can become very difficult to discern sometimes. How do we know which pull is which in the middle of a moral battle or, as we call it, a temptation? Shall we just miraculously know? Where does the Scripture say we shall? And should we trust the Bible if it does say so…or doesn’t…if it is not inerrant?

            The Bible was given to teach us, to admonish us, to correct us and to encourage us. When we are confused on any point, the Spirit of God in us uses what is written to clarify to us what we must do. Without the Bible, we live at risk of delusion and insanity. Anybody could get up and say anything about God and Life and we would have no way of knowing if it was true. How would you trust the inner knowledge or voices that you yourself would hear then? How would you know which visions and revelations come from God? We would all be “freestyling” Christianity and life, so to speak. There are many today who want it that way so they talk about how there are many legitimate truths and everyone should walk in their own truth and judge nobody else. But the end of that road is summary destruction for all who follow it.

            As I said before, I say again, you are at liberty to believe whatever you please, Ufuoma. But be extremely careful what you claim to be the position of the Spirit of God on any matter.


            June 15, 2016
  • Avatar

    I think that the Abrahamaic religions are quite similar, that might explain the conversion from one to the other.
    Great post, and as usual @od; thanks for the thought provoking comment.

    June 12, 2016
  • Avatar

    Wow! First off Ufuoma, when I saw the title, I almost skipped over because I thought this was going to be something that would be unintelligently written and would leave me angry at how many people just don’t let the HOLY SPIRIT teach them. Suffice to say, I bless GOD for making me click that button! This is so beautifully written that I just want to lie down and worship GOD for such wisdom.

    Thank you for writing what I have always felt GOD was showing me. It shows that the SPIRIT is one!

    Thank you!

    I am going to share this everywhere I can! Proud to have taken a glimpse into your mind; and thus, the SPIRIT of our KING!

    June 12, 2016
  • Avatar

    In ruminating over this topic, some questions came to my mind, which I would like to share.

    If the Bible is not infallible, who determines what part is wrong? You? Me? Your general overseer? Or maybe even the Pope? Or the Holy Spirit(who by the way, may be fake)?

    If the Bible is not error -free, how can we trust anything it says? How are we sure the whole Bible isn’t a con?

    I think this post questions the very essence and foundation of Christianity and must be urgently addressed.

    I don’t the answers to any of these questions, but I’ll do some studying.

    June 12, 2016
  • Avatar

    *don’t have

    June 12, 2016
  • Avatar

    It will be very helpful if you explain certain terms. What do you mean by “the Bible’s authority is built on the authority of the Church”? Yet you said that it inspired by God, it the scriptures and holy, yet its authority is from men?

    What do you mean by “word of God”? Jesus as the Word of God, meaning that by means of him all things were created and came to be and that by means of Jesus, God communicates his instructions and information to angels and humans, his spokesperson. If theses are your
    thoughts, then I agree.

    COMPLETE word of God? Do you mean there something more that has to be said outside of the bible that is only revealed by Christ and the holy spirit? If it is the holy spirit that speaks to us, and leads us to the truth.

    What validates that “truth”? How can we assume that it is the holy spirit that is revealing to us and not something else? Demons are spirits too. So I ask what is that “truth”? How do you know that “truth” is valid? There has to be a basis or a foundation to which we validate the “truth” with ourselves. I am sure that you reference to the things God’s have said or done which is all found in the bible. So if the bible is not inerrant, but you reference that to validate your beliefs. Then can your “truth” or belief system be inerrant? The reason why there are so many churches, sect, and religion is that many are left to their own interpretation of what the will or spirit of God is or what “truth” has been revealed to them. That how we have many false doctrines like Trinity (story for another day) and many others. The bible provides the guidelines (by means of God of course) and written within it is what God desire of us. The holy spirit helps us increase our understanding of God’s wisdom, so that we can follow him closely. It also helps to retain and recall information that we have already learn in the bible when we have doubt or questions.

    June 12, 2016
  • Avatar

    @ufuomaee …i do not have problem with your beliefs as a Christian…but your understanding of certain things begs some questions……1…if you as. Christian do not see the Bible as the infallible word of God….who then should..2…what is the gospel truth as your article reads …

    June 13, 2016
  • Avatar

    Thanks to author for this timely piece on the Bible.

    Jesus is the Word that became flesh. He is the secret to victorious Christian living.

    A year or so ago, I came across an image of a Bible on Facebook. It was a beautifully designed picture with a gigantic door that led a number of people on to a path, and behind the door was a picture of what the author portrayed as heaven. The caption on the image reads: “The Bible is the only way to heaven.” And as expected of believers with a herd mentality, many of the respondents typed “Amen.” Some others responded with a “yes.”

    After a few seconds of reading comments, I simply typed, “No, Bible is not the way to heaven or God; Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life…no man comes to the Father but by Him.”

    Some months later, the same picture made its way into my news feed, but with a caption: “Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life…”

    The holy Bible has been idolized by many Christians, especially in Africa.

    June 15, 2016
  • Avatar

    EWOOOOOOOO ???????????? @ufuomaee @od Una just turn comment section to bible study an dissection class. Pesin fit use am do handout for Bible school sef

    Reminds me of the 10-20 minute devotions I’d have with popsi…..that would end up going on for 3-4 hours because dissection no fit finish.

    June 16, 2016
  • Avatar

    @ufuomaee Aunty!! As always, something to think about yiu have given unto me, yes. Mhmm. Also you try oh. See as you dissect all the inquiries people had.

    June 16, 2016
Post a Comment