Biblical Intolerance

An evangelical approach to Christianity

May I propose at the outset that this discussion concerns the biggest fault-line in Christendom today. Bigger than the ordination of women, bigger than the traditional vs. contemporary debate, and bigger, even, than the place of homosexuals in the church. Its size dwarfs the other issues, because it concerns the most important question of all; what is Christianity? On this most fundamental level there are huge disagreements which need to be brought out into the open. People are working with different definitions of the word ‘Christian’. I want to work towards a biblical definition of Christianity and suggest that what many people call Christianity today is condemned by the Bible itself. Perhaps some people are unwilling to appeal to the Bible as the supreme arbiter in this issue — that is an important but separate matter — but I want to show that the Scriptures reveal a completely different message from the kind this magazine usually represents. I am aware that such intolerance may cause offence but I believe it is the same offence that the apostles (Acts 4:1–21; 5:17–40; 6:9–11; 7:51–54 etc.) and Jesus Christ himself (Mk. 2:6,7; 3:6; Jn.6:60 etc.) caused as they preached the biblical gospel. Any other offence is unintentional.

I want to loosely base this article around the book of Galatians in which Paul seeks to preserve the message of Christianity from alteration. The following words show that there is a specific Christian message which can be distorted so that it is no longer the message of Christ. In such circumstances it receives the condemnation of Paul. “I marvel that you are turning away so soon from him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach any gospel to you other than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any gospel to you other than what you have received, let him be accursed” (Gal.1:6–9 NKJV). To respond that Paul distorted the purer message of Christ and added a judgmental emphasis that was foreign to the teaching of Christ does not fit the facts. Paul says “the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal.1:11,12). Jesus himself made it clear that a vague association with him and his message was not the same as being a Christian “Not everyone who says to me ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven” (Mat.7:21). It is also of note that the chapter begins with him saying “Judge not that you be not judged” (Mat.7:1).

On this point can I add a plea for some honesty in interpretation. It’s easy to find a verse or two which seems to bolster a particular theory, sling it at one’s opponents and feel smug that it’s an irrefutable biblical argument. But some verses from the apostle Peter show the Bible can be used in an unbiblical way. Speaking about Paul’s epistles, he significantly adds, “which those who are untaught and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures” (2 Pet.3:16). It doesn’t take a genius to twist the Bible. As we try to understand its message, rather than forcing upon it the meaning we want it to have, or setting one truth against another, we must let it speak and harmonize for itself. We must work out what message the writer wanted to convey to the reader in each passage. So for example, it’s unbiblical to use the verse “Judge not that you be not judged” (Mat.7:1) to argue that any discrimination between right and wrong teaching is prohibited by Jesus. Why? Because in the same sermon he commands us to “Beware of false prophets ” [and to] know them by their fruits” (7:15,16) which requires the exercise of discretion. The one part of Scripture must be allowed to interpret the meaning of the other. If this is not done, what we have is not so much the message of the Bible as the product of a twenty-first century mind as he manipulates it, as unauthoritative as a layman commenting on the intricacies of microbiology would be. Furthermore, to pervert the meaning of the Bible like that is an act of gross arrogance. For all the intolerance of the position I am advocating, that kind of attitude is far worse. It professes to respect the message of Christ, but secretly culls it of anything which can’t be reconciled with its own agenda. Therefore the biblical concepts of sin, of an angry God, and of atonement (to name but some) are explained away despite their clear roots in Jesus’ teaching.

Reverting back to Galatians, I will attempt to summarise the gospel that Paul is defending. This will inevitably be very sketchy so I recommend a private study in your own time. First of all, Paul is writing about the great issue of salvation. That is what the gospel is all about — salvation. More particularly the issue is “justification” (2:16,17; 3:8,11,24; 5:4). Paul knows “the Scripture has confined all under sin” (3:22) i.e. they are sinners. Therefore all “are under the curse [of God’s law]” (3:10). Justification is about how a sinner can escape God’s judgment by becoming “righteous” (2:21; 3:6, 21; 5:5). So we see that the biblical gospel is good news about how sinners can be saved from the punishment of God for their sins. I fear that most of today’s Christianity does not deal with that problem at all. The whole context of man’s sinfulness and plight is missing. The answer that today’s Christianity provides is therefore inevitably different from Paul’s, because it is answering a different question. Paul’s good news is that the way to be saved is “by faith in Jesus Christ” (2:16) and nothing else at all. He then goes on to open up what faith in Jesus means. It’s not just a vague belief in a historic figure but belief in certain truths about what Christ was accomplishing on the cross (“having become a curse for us” 3:13). But neither is true faith just a bare assent to certain doctrinal propositions; it is always accompanied by a radical change in a person’s nature. A Christian is “born according to the Spirit” (4:29), a “new creation” (6:15), “crucified with Christ” (2:20). Anything different to this clear Christian message falls under the curse of Paul. And how does today’s Christianity compare? Very poorly, I fear.

This stance which I have taken — that derives its position from the Bible alone — is known as evangelical. As evangelicals critique contemporary Christianity they are often charged with intolerance. In all honesty I think that it is non-evangelicals who are displaying intolerance. To refuse to submit to the message of the Bible is to be intolerant of God himself. It is to be intolerant to the idea that you are a sinner who’s greatest need in all the world is to be reconciled to God through the death of his Son. I’ve not written this to be inflammatory but because I — and many other real Christians — long for people who are following unbiblical teaching to be saved. I don’t want to kick up a fuss but to get people to seriously examine their beliefs with the Bible. Perhaps you’re baptised and have gone to church all your life, but these things, says Paul, cannot atone for your sin. Only living faith in the living Christ is sufficient. “You must be born again” (Jn.3:7). “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31). “Many will say to me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord …’ and then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you who practise lawlessness!’” (Mat.7:22,23).

Simon Arscott

Do you feel strongly about the views expressed in this article? Do you have anything to say in reply? If so, tell us in writing. Email submissions@christis.org.uk or put a note in our societies pigeonhole in the SU building.

Continuing the debate …

By Simon Arscott

May I propose at the outset that this discussion concerns the biggest fault-line in Christendom today. Bigger than the ordination of women, bigger than the traditional vs. contemporary debate, and bigger, even, than the place of homosexuals in the church. Its size dwarfs the other issues, because it concerns the most important question of all; what is Christianity? On this most fundamental level there are huge disagreements which need to be brought out into the open. People are working with different definitions of the word ‘Christian’. I want to work towards a biblical definition of Christianity and suggest that what many people call Christianity today is condemned by the Bible itself. Perhaps some people are unwilling to appeal to the Bible as the supreme arbiter in this issue — that is an important but separate matter — but I want to show that the Scriptures reveal a completely different message from the kind this magazine usually represents. I am aware that such intolerance may cause offence but I believe it is the same offence that the apostles (Acts 4:1–21; 5:17–40; 6:9–11; 7:51–54 etc.) and Jesus Christ himself (Mk. 2:6,7; 3:6; Jn.6:60 etc.) caused as they preached the biblical gospel. Any other offence is unintentional.

I want to loosely base this article around the book of Galatians in which Paul seeks to preserve the message of Christianity from alteration. The following words show that there is a specific Christian message which can be distorted so that it is no longer the message of Christ. In such circumstances it receives the condemnation of Paul. “I marvel that you are turning away so soon from him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach any gospel to you other than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any gospel to you other than what you have received, let him be accursed” (Gal.1:6–9 NKJV). To respond that Paul distorted the purer message of Christ and added a judgmental emphasis that was foreign to the teaching of Christ does not fit the facts. Paul says “the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal.1:11,12). Jesus himself made it clear that a vague association with him and his message was not the same as being a Christian “Not everyone who says to me ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven” (Mat.7:21). It is also of note that the chapter begins with him saying “Judge not that you be not judged” (Mat.7:1).

On this point can I add a plea for some honesty in interpretation. It’s easy to find a verse or two which seems to bolster a particular theory, sling it at one’s opponents and feel smug that it’s an irrefutable biblical argument. But some verses from the apostle Peter show the Bible can be used in an unbiblical way. Speaking about Paul’s epistles, he significantly adds, “which those who are untaught and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures” (2 Pet.3:16). It doesn’t take a genius to twist the Bible. As we try to understand its message, rather than forcing upon it the meaning we want it to have, or setting one truth against another, we must let it speak and harmonize for itself. We must work out what message the writer wanted to convey to the reader in each passage. So for example, it’s unbiblical to use the verse “Judge not that you be not judged” (Mat.7:1) to argue that any discrimination between right and wrong teaching is prohibited by Jesus. Why? Because in the same sermon he commands us to “Beware of false prophets ” [and to] know them by their fruits” (7:15,16) which requires the exercise of discretion. The one part of Scripture must be allowed to interpret the meaning of the other. If this is not done, what we have is not so much the message of the Bible as the product of a twenty-first century mind as he manipulates it, as unauthoritative as a layman commenting on the intricacies of microbiology would be. Furthermore, to pervert the meaning of the Bible like that is an act of gross arrogance. For all the intolerance of the position I am advocating, that kind of attitude is far worse. It professes to respect the message of Christ, but secretly culls it of anything which can’t be reconciled with its own agenda. Therefore the biblical concepts of sin, of an angry God, and of atonement (to name but some) are explained away despite their clear roots in Jesus’ teaching.

Reverting back to Galatians, I will attempt to summarise the gospel that Paul is defending. This will inevitably be very sketchy so I recommend a private study in your own time. First of all, Paul is writing about the great issue of salvation. That is what the gospel is all about — salvation. More particularly the issue is “justification” (2:16,17; 3:8,11,24; 5:4). Paul knows “the Scripture has confined all under sin” (3:22) i.e. they are sinners. Therefore all “are under the curse [of God’s law]” (3:10). Justification is about how a sinner can escape God’s judgment by becoming “righteous” (2:21; 3:6, 21; 5:5). So we see that the biblical gospel is good news about how sinners can be saved from the punishment of God for their sins. I fear that most of today’s Christianity does not deal with that problem at all. The whole context of man’s sinfulness and plight is missing. The answer that today’s Christianity provides is therefore inevitably different from Paul’s, because it is answering a different question. Paul’s good news is that the way to be saved is “by faith in Jesus Christ” (2:16) and nothing else at all. He then goes on to open up what faith in Jesus means. It’s not just a vague belief in a historic figure but belief in certain truths about what Christ was accomplishing on the cross (“having become a curse for us” 3:13). But neither is true faith just a bare assent to certain doctrinal propositions; it is always accompanied by a radical change in a person’s nature. A Christian is “born according to the Spirit” (4:29), a “new creation” (6:15), “crucified with Christ” (2:20). Anything different to this clear Christian message falls under the curse of Paul. And how does today’s Christianity compare? Very poorly, I fear.

This stance which I have taken — that derives its position from the Bible alone — is known as evangelical. As evangelicals critique contemporary Christianity they are often charged with intolerance. In all honesty I think that it is non-evangelicals who are displaying intolerance. To refuse to submit to the message of the Bible is to be intolerant of God himself. It is to be intolerant to the idea that you are a sinner who’s greatest need in all the world is to be reconciled to God through the death of his Son. I’ve not written this to be inflammatory but because I — and many other real Christians — long for people who are following unbiblical teaching to be saved. I don’t want to kick up a fuss but to get people to seriously examine their beliefs with the Bible. Perhaps you’re baptised and have gone to church all your life, but these things, says Paul, cannot atone for your sin. Only living faith in the living Christ is sufficient. “You must be born again” (Jn.3:7). “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31). “Many will say to me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord …’ and then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you who practise lawlessness!’” (Mat.7:22,23).

Simon Arscott

Do you feel strongly about the views expressed in this article? Do you have anything to say in reply? If so, tell us in writing. Email submissions@christis.org.uk or put a note in our societies pigeonhole in the SU building.