How do Christians perceive themselves, their purpose, and their future if they perceive the typical biblical images as previously discussed? In particular, what biblical worldview is formed with that “worldly” perspective; and, does that worldview result in a belief system that is without flaw or contradiction? Perhaps most importantly, does a worldview based on a literal historical interpretation provide a clear and consistent perception of the good news that one could imagine Jesus proclaiming at the beginning of His ministry?
Perception of created world
Perhaps the saddest consequence for many who perceive God’s Word with a worldly perspective is how they imagine the created world. Presumably God created a perfect world as depicted by the image of Eden, but the sin of man has made the current world hell-ish. Consequently, many with a worldly perspective imagine that this world will continue to decay and will ultimately be “burned up” by God. Notably, God is depicted as a “consuming fire,” but is that image intended to be perceived literally? According to Peter, what “land” with its “works” will be burned up (2 Pet 3:10)?
The biblical worldview often maintains that this created world is a temporary location that must be endured, and that the future hope for believers is a different heavenly world. “They are in a better place” is a common thought at funerals. Is the depiction of heaven intended to be another world away from this one, often imagined as Eden or a vague new earth with streets of gold? If so, did Jesus proclaim the message of “good news” as being able to say “good riddance” to this world when you die, and that you will be able to forget your past life? Sadly, since religion has no meaningful perception of your future existence, most people imagine that life that after death means you will leave this world and forget your old life, instead of imagining how God will restore this world and your life. However, does God redeem your life so that it can be forgotten, or so that it can be refreshed and renewed? Imagine what happens to your perception of the creation account when it is perceived as a depiction of God’s creation of just you and your particular life.
Perception of male and female as designed sexes
Certainly, the imagined depiction of two biological sexes (male and female) is a perception that greatly influences the typical biblical worldview. The perception is that God created humans and animals with two distinct sexual natures, so presumably there is righteous judgment against anyone who deviates in any manner from God’s intended design of one’s gender. Notably, of all the sins of man, the matter of one’s sexual orientation is unique in the biblical worldview. Whereas most of the sins against your “self” (i.e. obesity, alcoholism, drug addiction, etc) are judged with some compassion, there is little or no tolerance for the entire spectrum of LBGQT sexual sin. So, while choosing to be an alcoholic or a drug addict are frowned upon and discouraged to some degree by perhaps everyone, choosing to be gay or changing one’s sexual identity are typically condemned and harshly criticized particularly by those with a biblical worldview. Should the secular world ever be more compassionate than Christians in their attitude towards the lifestyle choices of others? Imagine what happens to your perception of male and female when the distinction is perceived as a depiction of your soul and spirit.
Perception of the Bible as a tool to judge lifestyle choices
Consider whether God ever intends His Word to be used as a “tool to judge” the lifestyles of other people? If you think so, then consider what happens when the “standard of acceptable behavior” evolves in a society. Does not the typical biblical worldview also evolve to accommodate the new standard? Arguably, the typical biblical worldview has continually evolved since the fourth century, such that what was once considered blasphemous by practically everyone is now considered acceptable by many even within the church. For example, consider the views on divorce, remarriage, the role of women, and the many personal lifestyle choices (drinking, dancing, smoking, clothing style, etc). Arguably, the typical biblical worldview has become much more compassionate in its line of thinking regarding many areas of a person’s lifestyle. So, how can the church ever claim to know the “absolute” biblical truth for a moral lifestyle when it changes its tune every generation? Consequently, how can anyone assume that God intended His Word to be used as a weapon in today’s society when it is likely that a future generation will not maintain the same biblical perspective? So, while you might feel that the church is becoming too “tolerant” of the behavior of others, the question is whether God ever intended His Word to be used as a weapon against the behavior of alternative lifestyles, particularly on the lifestyles of others who are presumed to be unbelievers. Consider who the Bible depicts as the morality police; Jesus or the Pharisees? Certainly, God’s Word is absolute truth, but the truth of what? Did God intend His Word to be used by the Pharisees, or today’s church, as a means to define the required external behavior for every person of every generation? Imagine what happens to your perception of the Ten Commandments and the OT law when they are perceived as depictions of the internal law for your spiritual elements.
Perception of male and female roles
In addition to the perception that the image of male and female is intended to depict biological truths of two sexes, the typical biblical worldview also imagines that God’s Word depicts the respective “roles” of the sexes. Of course, the perceived role of women has been frequently challenged by an evolving society, so the biblical worldview must again either evolve or risk being rejected. Notably, when approached with a worldly perspective, the Bible certainly does appear to make distinctions between the male and female sex such that there is the perception of misogyny. Of course, many feel that times were different when the Bible was written, so they can rationalize an evolving “application” of those images because “modern thinking” presumably should be considered. However, the applications are invariably subjective by their nature, so there is constantly much debate within the church on the biblical role of women. Notably, various bible translations even took it upon themselves to address the perception of misogyny by literally changing gender references to make God’s Word respectful for today’s world. So, not only must the typical biblical worldview evolve regarding the perceived roles of the sexes, but also many Christians perceive that God’s Word must be modernized. Should a biblical worldview be required to evolve with the modernizing of society; and, must God’s Word also evolve with the times? Imagine what happens to your perception of the role of male and female when the hierarchy is perceived as a depiction of the intended relationship between the soul and spirit that is consistent for every person ever born.
Perception of the fall of man
Of course, the image of “the fall of man” forms the foundation of the perceived need for a savior within the typical biblical worldview. Notably, there are many variations of theological opinions regarding perceived aspects of the fall (e.g., original sin), so there is no “absolute truth” of this image that can be claimed by anyone. Oddly, the fall of man is perhaps one of the most obscure and debated biblical concepts; so, did God intend to give us this critical image to cause confusion and endless debate? Imagine what happens to your perception of the fall when the garden scene is perceived as a depiction of your internal nature.
Perception of God
Typically, the image of “Eden” is imagined as God walking and talking directly with man, yet man exercised his free will by disobeying God who consequently threw man out of the garden. The image of the fall results in the perception of separation from God, and the “good news” of the Bible is God’s promise of salvation which will ultimately restore that direct fellowship with God as experienced in Eden. Consequently, heaven is often imagined as a reversal of the fall where believers are literally walking with God and talking to Him face to face. Notably, God is perceived as an external being, so the relationship is imagined as external. Are we to imagine seeing God with our eyes, or hearing Him speak from above as comedians sometimes depict? Does God want us to create an image of Him as a physical being, or does the second commandment caution otherwise? Why would God give you an image that presumably encourages you to create an image of Him, while also cautioning you from creating that image? Imagine what happens to your perception of God when He is perceived as a depiction of perfect love.
Perception of the nations
As mentioned, the nation of Israel is typically imagined as the ancestral line of the coming messiah, and a primary image of that nation is David with his “heart for God” as expressed in the Psalms. However, the righteous David continually calls out to God to destroy his enemies, and God does destine Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, and other nations for destruction. So, does God literally kill other people to protect David? To protect His people? To protect you? If so, then these images of God’s destined wrath on the surrounding nations create apparent contradictions with Jesus’ command to love our enemies and Paul’s depiction that our warfare is spiritual and not physical. So, can any belief system simply resolve these apparent contradictions, and can anyone reasonably rationalize the perception of God literally killing woman and children? Does your belief system perceive that there are wicked people today that God has similarly destined for destruction? Does God ever stereotype people by their nationality, or destine entire nations for destruction? Critically, based on a literal historical approach to God’s Word, you are left with essentially two choices. Either you cannot reasonably explain the images, or you believe the images depict literal facts of history and future predictions. Sadly, as will be discussed regarding the end times, many with a biblical worldview believe those images literally depict what God has done and will do to “evil” nations. However, imagine what happens to your perception of the surrounding nations when they are perceived as depictions of the nature of various spiritual elements within your soul.
Perception of disobedient Israel
In addition to being the source nation of the future messiah, the nation of Israel is also imagined as the people who rejected God even though God sent warnings through numerous prophets. Notably, the typical biblical worldview primarily perceives much of God’s Word as depicting the Jews rejecting both God and ultimately Jesus. And since the Jews’ rejection resulted in a loss of God’s promised blessings and the promised land, the typical biblical worldview is primarily focused on how not to similarly reject God. Consequently, each belief system forms its particular approach for not rejecting God, and what you must do to partake in the promised salvation; however, what is God’s intent for providing the image of a disobedient Israel? Perhaps the typical biblical worldview misinterprets the image of Israel’s rejection by simply countering with a vague work of faith. Notably, the common perception of Israel results in Christians claiming that they are different than the Jews; “they rejected God, but we accept Him.” Of course, the perception creates the sense of “us versus them,” and that perception is arguably the root of antisemitism for many. However, imagine what happens to your perception of disobedient Israel when its story is perceived as a depiction of your eternal spiritual life.
Perception of OT salvation
Perhaps the vaguest area in the typical biblical worldview is the perception of salvation in the OT. The nation of Israel supposedly forfeited its salvation; however, were individuals saved? The matter of OT salvation adds to the conundrum of who is saved within the typical biblical worldview. Many do not consider the conundrum, but rather they just leave it to blind trust. They consider it unimportant to understand salvation prior to Pentecost because they believe that something different started with Pentecost. Yet, are there multiple ways to God? Of course, it is understandable why many do not want to consider the matter of OT salvation; because, if you imagine salvation as only being possible by “accepting” a belief in Jesus, then you know that your perspective creates a conundrum since that acceptance was not possible in the OT. So, by extension, you must believe either that no one in the OT was saved, or that there was another way of salvation. Understandably, if you perceive that faith is a work of the flesh, then Abraham saved himself as you did. However, if so, consider who are you worshipping for bringing you out of Egypt (Ex 32:4; 1 Kings 12:28). Imagine what happens to your perception of OT salvation when Pentecost is perceived as a depiction of an individual event that will occur in every person’s future life.
Perception of the remnant
Notably, the OT image of salvation includes references to a “remnant” of Israel. What does the image of a remnant represent? Who were these Jews? Presumably they were saved, but on what basis did God select the remnant of Israel? Notably, Paul discusses the remnant in Romans 11, and he states that a remnant remains today chosen by grace. Who is Paul talking about? How does the remnant of OT Israel relate to Paul’s NT remnant? The intended meaning of the image of the remnant is certainly a confusing and debatable point, and a modern attempt to clarify the meaning of the remnant is the dispensational belief system. Yet, do dispensational belief systems provide clarity or just add to the confusion? Importantly, do dispensationalists use scripture as intended to define the dispensational periods, or do they manipulate select verses to create images that are not consistent with the balance of scripture? Imagine what happens to your perception of the remnant when it is perceived as a depiction of the spiritual elements within you that God has sovereignly destined for a particular salvation.
Significantly, perhaps the greatest consequence of religion is the division between those perceived as saved and those perceived as unsaved. Essentially, the typical biblical worldview perceives that someone is part of the remnant if they adopt the proper belief system, and whoever does not adopt the proper belief system is perceived as not being part of the remnant. Presumably, the world would be a better place if everyone adopted the proper biblical worldview. Consequently, those with a biblical worldview generally perceive that if you are not with them, then you are against them. So, how we perceive ourselves and others is greatly influenced by whether one is imagined as part of the remnant. Is the good news intended as a message of “us versus them”? Sadly, many religious people would say yes.
Perception of Jesus
Notably, the typical biblical worldview externalizes both the solution (Jesus) and the problem (unbelievers and Satan). Jesus is imagined as coming into this world again in person, and the imagined purpose of a believer is to convince others to join their belief system while resisting the external forces of evil. The external perspective of the biblical worldview is comforting for many who do not want to consider their ongoing role in salvation. Because, while they will admit that they are sinners, they perceive that accepting a belief in the historical Jesus is the only action required to resolve their sin problem. And, now that they perceive themselves as saved, their purpose in life becomes a mission to rid the world of evil by convincing others to join their particular belief system. Their mantra becomes, “I accepted Jesus; you should too.” Is there a better way to justify a particular decision than by convincing others to do the same? In many minds, the sole determination of how well they lived in this world is how many unbelievers they converted to their belief system. The entire biblical worldview of both the problem and the solution are focused on the external world, and this perspective is vividly apparent by its focus on the image of an external Jesus. However, imagine what happens to your perception of Jesus when the gospels are perceived as depictions of future events in your eternal life, and not just as historical events that happened 2,000 years ago.
Perception of sin
The external perspective of the biblical worldview imagines temptation as an external force. For many, Satan is not just a name, but he is literally personified, with the dominant image of Satan tempting Eve to sin in the garden. Presumably in a similar manner, many perceive that there is an external “satanic being” who tempts people to sin, and people choose whether to succumb to his temptation and thereby disobey God. Importantly, the sinful behavior is viewed as a decision made by a person’s will, and people are judged as to whether they freely choose to make good or bad choices. Of course, the common perception is that people are in jail because they freely made bad choices, while others can feel good about their behavior if they can control themselves such that they conform to the requirements of their belief system. Notably, the biblical worldview does attempt to include God in the battle against sin, but typically the decision whether or not to succumb to external temptations is ultimately perceived solely as a choice of a person’s will. In other words, no one can use the excuse “the devil made me do it,” but is that perspective consistent with the balance of scripture? Imagine what happens to your perception of sin when wickedness and evil are perceived as depictions of internal elements that God is currently restraining in every person’s life.
Perception of heaven
Consider how the typical biblical worldview makes everything about the way in which you live your life in this world. God created this world and everything in it, but man rebelled and disobeyed God. So, Jesus came once into this world to die for the sins committed by everyone in this world, and one’s ongoing salvation is contingent on believing that one fact. However, believers must suffer in this sinful world until Jesus comes back again to restore the world to the way God originally intended. In the meantime, God gives the Holy Spirit so that believers can live a more righteous life in this world. Once a believer dies, they leave this world and go to an unknown heavenly realm. However, they will return to this world with Jesus when He comes again to restore the world. And the believer’s life in the new world is often imagined as being based on how they lived their life while in this world. Notably, judgement for believers is often depicted as an award ceremony where everyone gets a participation trophy. Those who lived a more righteous life will obtain greater glory, while those with less righteousness will have lesser glory. The image of the lesser glory is often depicted as being a street cleaner; it might not be the most glorious position in the new world, but it beats the alternative of hell. So, is the hope of future glory dependent on how you live your life in this world? According to the typical biblical worldview, your destiny in the next age is solely dependent on your behavior or decisions made during your life in this age. Arguably, that image depicts a yolk being applied to your current life; so, if that worldview is wrong, would not the woe pronounced on the Pharisees also apply to those who promote that worldview (Matt 23:15)?
Notably, according to the typical Protestant biblical worldview, all past and future sins are forgiven once someone adopts the proper belief system. Of course, there is a continued battle against sin in this life, but it is perceived that the battle ends once a believer dies to this world. The heavenly realm after death is not clearly understood, but there is a general presumption that sin is not only forgiven but that it is also forgotten. Presumably, since Jesus paid the penalty for the believer’s sins, it would be unjust for God to hold believers further accountable for their sins. However, there is a clear biblical image that everyone will need to account for every word and deed, so I suspect that creates varying degrees of doubt of the future. Some hold, as previously mentioned, that the only risk to believers is a loss of rewards. That sounds nice and peaceful, but should the future hope be based on an unclear image that tickles the ear? Were the false prophets lambasted for delivering a sobering or a “peace peace” message? Were the people warned by God of being complacent? Does the worldly perspective promote complacency by its blind understanding of life after death? Imagine what happens to your perception of the next life when the stories of Israel after crossing the Jordon are perceived as depictions of the many generations of your future.
Perception of life
As originally suggested, how anyone answers the three great questions in life is influenced by their biblical worldview. And when God’s Word is perceived as depicting images of this world, the answer to “who am I” becomes solely dependent on whether or not someone is considered part of the saved remnant. Once someone is part of the remnant, then their “purpose” in life becomes a mission to persuade others to also join the remnant. And being part of remnant, the answer to the question of the “future” becomes a vague understanding of living a more righteous life in this world, and an even more elusive understanding of a “glorious” life after death. Interestingly, those with a biblical worldview often stress that their strong faith is exhibited by putting a blind trust in God’s plan for their life. Simply stated, they believe it is an asset to exhibit a blind faith. However, God repeatedly states that “my people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge.” So, does a blind faith result from a lack of knowledge? Imagine what happens to your perception of this life when you perceive the stories of Israel enslaved in Egypt and following God in the wilderness as depictions of your current life, such that you now have the same purpose (as a fetus in a womb) to trust God for your provision and protection while seeking to understand His perception of your eternal life.
Summary of typical biblical perceptions
Religion generally perceives that God’s purpose for His Word is to give us a wisdom of this world, which many call a “biblical worldview.” Supposedly, everything you need to know regarding “how” to live your life is revealed in the Bible. Yet, the typical literal historical perspective of God’s Word results in perceptions that are confusing and inconsistent over time. Arguably, since the first Christian belief system was “created” in the fourth century, many aspects of the biblical worldview have evolved based on man’s wisdom and the culture of the times. Certainly, one might expect that the “cultural norms” would evolve within a modernizing society, but should anyone feel confident in adopting a belief system whose perception of the “absolute truth” also evolves over time?
Of course, religion also perceives that God’s purpose for His Word is to give us the good news of God sending His Son to die for our sins. And, depending on the belief system’s particular perspective, each religion wants you to do something in response; such as accept, trust, obey, believe, submit, or love. Basically, most religious people believe that if you do the right thing in this life by “repenting” and accepting their particular belief system, then you will “go to heaven” and avoid the inevitable everlasting judgement of God. Typically, religion argues that a “true faith” in God is demonstrated either by a particular method of acceptance (e.g., baptism, profession of faith), or by the apparent evidence of acceptance (e.g., good works, less sin, sinless). In either case, a “work” must occur, otherwise your salvation is considered in doubt. And, since the definition of that work is subjective, no one can ever know for certain whether a person is truly “saved,” such that the “good news” of religion will always result in doubt to some degree. However, if the good news proclaimed by Jesus did not result in the same uncertainty, then why should anyone feel confident in a belief system that has never been able to provide a certain and indisputable message of the good news that one could imagine Jesus proclaiming at the beginning of His ministry?