How do Christians perceive themselves, their purpose, and their future if they perceive the Bible as depicting images of this world? What biblical worldview is typically formed with that “worldly” perspective; and, does that worldview result in a belief system that is without flaw or contradiction? And, perhaps most importantly, does a worldview based on a literal historical interpretation provide a clear 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? 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 the future hope intended to be another world away from this one; often imagined as Eden or a vague new earth with streets of gold? Do you agree that your future hope is primarily that you will be able to leave this world behind? However, did Jesus proclaim the “good news” as a message that you will be able to forget this world and say “good riddance” when you die? Sadly, since religion has no perception of your future existence, the future hope becomes an image of the life that you will leave behind and forget as opposed to the restoration of that life. Consider, 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 depicted design of two biological sexes (male and female) is an image 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? 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 time? 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 imagined “roles of the sexes” within the typical biblical worldview has evolved over time. 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 arguably 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 perceived 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 thereby 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? 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 destined for 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 perceives temptation as an external force. For many, Satan is not just a name, but he is literally personified, with the dominant image being 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;” however, 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 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 perceived 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. Jesus paid the penalty for the believer’s sins, so presumably 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 Jordan are perceived as depictions of the many generations of your future.
Perception of life
As originally suggested, how one answers the three major questions in life is greatly 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 vaguer 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.” Is blind faith a result of 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
Arguably, the typical biblical worldview results in a belief system that is confusing and inconsistent over time. Since the first Christian belief system in the fourth century, all biblical worldviews based on a worldly perspective have evolved with man’s understanding and the culture of the times. Should anyone feel confident in adopting a belief system that evolves over time? And, perhaps most importantly, should anyone be confident in a perspective that has never been able to provide a clear message of the good news that one could imagine Jesus proclaiming at the beginning of His ministry? Perhaps the worldly perspective is perceiving the wrong understanding with its literal interpretation, and the vagueness and inconsistencies are the obvious indications of being the wrong perspective.
Consider how religion generally concludes that God’s purpose for the Bible is to give us a wisdom of this world. Supposedly, everything you need to know regarding life in this world is revealed in the Bible. Religion views the OT narratives as object lessons that give us understanding as to how to live morally in this world. For example, we are to look at the images of David’s life to learn the good things that he did and the bad things that we should not do. Of course, times were different then, so teachers of religion supposedly utilize their wisdom to help others apply those lessons to modern times. However, if that is God’s purpose for His Word, why don’t any of the NT writers stress that form of application?
Of course, religion also believes that God’s purpose for the Bible is to give us the good news of God sending His Son to die for our sins. The entire Bible is often summarized as God’s plan to rescue us from sin; and, depending on the particular perspective, religion wants you to do something; accept, trust, obey, believe, submit, love. Basically, most religious people believe that if you do the right thing in this life (i.e. join their belief system), then you will “go to heaven” and avoid the inevitable everlasting judgement of God. Typically, “faith” must be demonstrated either by a particular method of acceptance (i.e. baptism, profession of faith) or an expected evidence of acceptance (i.e. good works, less sin, sinless). In either case, a “work” must occur or else your salvation is considered in doubt. Alternatively, some within religion believe, regardless of what you do in this life, that some “elect” people are destined to heaven and all others to hell. Notably, both sides can recite scripture verses that support their particular view, and both sides deemphasize or ignore verses that do not support their particular view. Einstein certainly did not deemphasize or ignore any of his images, because he knew that a correct understanding could not have contradictions and had to “work” in all instances. However, both sides of religion accept this obvious contradiction as an unsolvable conundrum; “we will agree to disagree.” Can either understanding be deemed correct with an unsolvable conundrum at the foundation of its belief system? Is it possible that the God of the universe could not clearly communicate His critical message of good news? Is His purpose to cause confusion?
Perhaps both sides are looking at select words of the Bible, but they are missing the larger images. Perhaps they cannot perceive the images because of the perspective they have assumed based on their man-made rules of interpretation. Perhaps their perception of the purpose for God’s Word is not accurate. Perhaps their understanding of the meaning of God’s Word is wrong because it is based solely on man’s wisdom and not from the wisdom of God. Perhaps the Bible can be currently understood only through the gift of prophecy which enables the perception of spiritual images. Perhaps the spiritual perspective is the only correct way to approach the Bible.
Considerations for evangelists
Consider your message of the good news. Can you imagine Jesus proclaiming your message? Does your message of the good news emphasize an avoidance of judgment with a vague description of hell? Notably, even evil repents for a while when faced with potential destruction (Jonah 3:9). Perhaps your success at getting a “decision” from people is only a temporary self-preservation response from the evil in them (James 2:19). Notably, Jesus called His disciples to make disciples of His Word. Are you also a disciple who understands the secret things? Perhaps you should be first be a disciple before trying to make a disciple. In particular, before evangelizing to others, do you think you should first understand the signs that Jesus indicated would accompany those who believe (Mark 16:17-18)? Perhaps you should seriously consider the extreme potential hazard Jesus described in the rare time He discussed evangelicalism (Matt 23:15). Were the Pharisees professing the wisdom of man or God? Are you certain you know which are you professing?
Consider the good news of the Kingdom of God proclaimed by Jesus when He first started His ministry (Matt 4:23). That was three years before the cross, so could He have proclaimed “believe that I am the Son of God who was sent by My Father to die on a cross for all your sins; and, if you accept me as your Lord and savior, then all your sins are forgiven and your future is a place called heaven”? Or could He have proclaimed that “My Father has destined to save some of you from hell”? It is unlikely that He proclaimed either of those messages because scripture is clear that they did not know until much later that Jesus was the messiah and a suffering servant. So, what did He proclaim? Did the message of good news change over time? Did He proclaim truths from the OT images, or was it a different message?
Consider whether the Bible states anywhere that if you “accept” some understanding then you will be saved. If there was some understanding to accept, would it not make sense that God would have clearly stated that requirement in His Word at least once? How many opportunities did Jesus have to state your version of the good news? How many times could He have said the words “just accept me”? Why did He not say it to the people who came to Him professing what they had done in His name? Too soon? Then why not say it on the cross? If the message of the good news is to “accept” Him or some understanding of Him, then wouldn’t it make sense that He would clearly express it on the cross? After His resurrection, why not make it clear? Does He express it to the two men on the road to Emmaus? Does He make it clear to the disciples? The church is telling you what you must do for salvation, but do you realize that it is never mentioned by Jesus or anyone else? When you tell someone to “accept” Jesus, do you realize you are telling them something that is not biblically true? Does that bother you?
Consider that according to religion, the “knowledge of God” is often reduced to the “essentials” of the faith. Notably, each belief system defines their particular understanding of what is essential, but many use a trilogy of three verses as the basis (John 3:16; Rom 10:9; Rom 8:1). Of course, John 3:16 is arguably the core message of evangelism, where Jesus states that “whoever believes” will have eternal life; yet, what does it mean to “believe”? There are many instances where people “believed” Jesus well before there was any indication of the cross. What did they believe? What two things are we to believe in order to please God (Heb 11:6)? Importantly, is the faith to believe those two things a gift from God, or an act of your will (Eph 2:8; John 1:13; Rom 9:16)? Are you the source of your faith? If you think so, are you stealing God’s glory by praising yourself instead of God (Matt 16:17; John 6:29)? So, when you ask someone to make a decision of the will, are you not making faith a work of human hands? Are you causing them to stumble? Are you giving them a reason to boast? Can anyone ever truly believe what you tell them to believe, or do they have to receive that understanding solely through direct interaction with God’s Word? Also, do you believe that a “decision” must be made before death? Where does it state that in the Bible? Does it not make sense that God would make that critical fact perfectly clear? Why then is the gospel preached to those who died (1 Pet 4:6)? Are you assuming something contrary to scripture? Consequentially, have you based the first “essential” belief of interpreting John 3:16 as some version of “you must make a decision before you die” on a misunderstanding of “faith” and a false assumption?
Consider whether Jesus states something new with John 3:16, or whether He is restating truths based on OT images. Can you find the OT images that He uses? Notably, John 3:16 was a private conversation with the teacher of Israel and not a public announcement of good news. What is the context of the conversation? Jesus is explaining what He calls “heavenly things” that go to the heart of understanding the spiritual perspective. Do you think you can reasonably explain all the secrets discussed in John 3? Do you speak of what you know (John 3:11)? If not, is it wise to quote a single verse from the middle of a private discourse of which you do not reasonably understand? Is it fair to use a single verse to impel someone to make a decision of the will to accept your uncertain understanding even though they do not even realize that there are secrets to be understood? Are you telling them what to believe, or how to find understanding? Are you trying to convince them of your understanding, or are you making them a disciple by encouraging them to seek Him is His Word to understand the secrets?
Consider the the meaning of Romans 10:9. What is the context? Is Paul chiding the Jews who were trying to create their own righteousness? In chapter nine, Paul gives a long argument stating that God’s election is based on nothing man has done, so why would he contradict himself in the next breath by supposedly saying that you can do something to save yourself? Does that make any sense? Is he talking about the attempts of self-righteousness versus a righteousness that comes from faith? So, is he talking about about the initial moment of salvation, or about being made holy (i.e. sanctification)? Notably, Paul gives us the OT confirming image before he commands them to confess and believe. (He is laying a pearl on the surface, but who sees it?) What is the context of the OT image, and what is Moses describing? Is he talking about how to make a profession to be “justified,” or how to be “sanctified” through God’s Word? When someone is challenged to identify where in the Bible it says to “accept” Jesus, Romans 10:9 is typically the only verse that is offered. Can you see how this single verse is taken totally out of context? Have you based the second “essential” belief of interpreting Romans 10:9 as some version of “make this profession of faith and you will be saved” on a misunderstanding of God’s Word? Notably, the misuse of Romans 10:9 is a perfect example of religion wrongly taking an individual verse to form a belief statement. Arguably, the concept of “confessing” Jesus (the Word) is the same image as depicted in the OT for “meditating” on the Word; because, a literal translation of the Hebrew would be to “mutter” the Word day and night. Is God’s Word always on your mind? Are you sowing God’s Word within yourself?
Consider how many people have a favorite verse. Notably, a while ago I was surprised to learn that R.C. claimed Genesis 15:17, but now I understand why. However, perhaps the verse I hear most often is Romans 8:1. The phrase “no condemnation” is perhaps the most powerful image of the worldly perspective. Do you believe the verse states that you will avoid God’s punishment if you accept Him? Notably, the verse starts with “therefore,” so perhaps it is important to accept Paul’s preceding truths regarding the nature of sin. Critically, if you believe in the concept of having a “free will” that decides whether or not to sin, then presumably either you do not understand Paul’s thinking or do you not agree with him. However, if you do not understand Paul or agree with his thinking, then should you quote his “therefore” statement? Also, he states that this truth is for those who are “in Christ” and not those who “accept” something. Apparently some transcripts include the additional clarification that the truth is for those “who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.” So, Paul is using the phrase “in Christ” which he describes elsewhere as a mystery that is revealed. Can you explain the mystery and how to walk according to the spirit? If you do not understand and agree with Paul’s understanding of sin, and if the mystery of being “in Christ” has not been revealed to you, then how can you be sure that you correctly understand the truth of 8.1? Finally, the meanings “punishment” and “condemnation” are not the same – agreed? Romans 8:1 is an amazing truth, but obviously many are relying on their own understanding. So again, have you based the third “essential” belief of interpreting Romans 8:1 as some version of “you will avoid God’s punishment if you accept Him” on your own understanding of God’s Word? Your perception of this one verse may fit the mantra “if you accept Jesus, then your sins are forgiven and your future is heaven,” but can you be sure that is a true understanding of what Paul is depicting? The nature of sin and its condemnation is a challenging image to understand, so is it wise to use this verse freely without a deep understanding?
Consider why religion created a message that exists no where in the Bible. Perhaps the church takes the image of Peter receiving the keys to the kingdom as the “right” to create traditions, so the church created its own belief system. Does that not sound like what the Pharisees did? What does God think about a temple made by human hands? If the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 AD was a fulfillment of prophecy, then why does none of the NT scripture written after the event mention the fulfillment? So, what does the image depicting the destruction of a temple made with human hands likely represent: the destruction of the Jewish religion in particular, or the destruction of all man-made belief systems in general (Mark 14:58)? Can you see the destruction of “that” temple as God’s promise to destroy all the man-made belief systems in your thinking? Does that sound like something God would plan to do? If your mind is being renewed, can you perceive that process as the replacement of your man-made religious beliefs with what God wants you to understand?
Consider that from the worldly perspective, the Calvinist view of God’s sovereignty in election is easily apparent in scripture. Interpreted literally, it appears impossible to believe anything else. And, while I understand the arguments for why the reprobate go to hell, could the good news from Jesus ever imply that message? Could He have said in any manner that only some people are destined for heaven based solely on His Father’s will? Is it possible that Jesus initially hid that message, but revealed it later? Why the apparent avoidance by Jesus? Did He hate the message as much as those who are not Calvinists? The argument for unconditional election is often based on Paul’s “golden chain” of salvation (Romans 8:29-30) and his subsequent discussions of Jacob/Esau and the vessels. However, the big downfall with the worldly perspective is consistently the matter of imagining the images as depictions of external versus internal truths. Perhaps the image of God loving Jacob and hating Esau is not meant as people or nations of this world, but rather as an image of the two nations at war within each of us; a war between the spirit and the flesh that is frequently described elsewhere. So, does God hate certain people such that He effectively allows them to condemn themselves, or does God hate the evil parts in each of us and allows them to condemn themselves?
The great misperception
Consider the possibility that one of the great misperceptions that causes the downfall of the worldly perspective is imagining that Jesus and scripture overall are talking literally about people in the world rather than symbolically about the spiritual elements within everyone. Once you consider the spiritual perspective as you approach God’s Word, perhaps you will begin to understand the world inside you and your heart will burn as you learn how God is working in you. Most importantly, perhaps you will understand the heart of man and what it means to love yourself, such that you will then understand how to love others and what is keeping you from loving God with your whole heart.
My argument is that all man-made Christian religions approach the Bible incorrectly by using the man-made rules of interpretation as decreed by hermeneutics. The foundation of hermeneutics is that God’s Word is to be perceived as a literal historical text which is to be understood as the author originally intended to his audience. And, by imagining the biblical images with some variation of the worldly perspective, everyone creates a supposed biblical view of God and this world. However, invariably, there is a vagueness in that understanding that requires a blind faith; and a blind faith by its nature will always result in doubt. So, should you accept that God wants you to have a blind faith, or do you believe there is a deeper knowledge to be gained? Perhaps that knowledge would provide you simple yet deep answers to the three great questions, such that your doubts are removed as you grow in confidence by gaining a deeper understanding of your life now and into the future.
Many opponents to religion have their arguments, but I hope you will consider my points of argument in a different light. Because, while my goal is to topple what I consider the major strongholds of the worldly perspective, my hope is to introduce you to an alternative perspective of God’s Word that provides those simple yet deep explanations. Notably, every argument that I raise against the worldly perspective is a position that I once firmly held, so I am actually arguing against my very familiar old self. My argument is against the Christian belief systems (i.e. religion), but I have no argument against the people of religion. Again, while I am questioning the wisdom of everyone’s thinking, I am not questioning anyone’s heart.
So, I will begin my comparison of the two perspectives by discussing the concept of dispensationalism, and how that concept is arguably the second great misperception of modern religion. Alternatively, I would like you to reimagine how the NT images are a depiction of the continuing story of Israel, such that your understanding of the message of good news can become an image of what Jesus proclaimed at the beginning of His ministry.