Preacher Robert Morris Horrible Eisegesis and Mangling of the Book of Job – Having a Penis Does Not Make One Immune From Bungling Biblical Interpretation

Preacher Robert Morris’ Horrible Eisegesis and Mangling of the Book of Job

Edit (Jan 26, 2017): I received a tweet from someone on Twitter in regards to this post who assumes that preacher Morris was referencing some verse from the book of Job where God spoke to Job and asked Job if Job intended to defend himself by putting God down.

However, that was NOT the verse Morris brought up in his sermon – at least not the portion I listened to.

In his sermon, Morris referred to, I believe, Job Chapter 33 (Link) or later, where Elihu (or another person in Job) makes an appearance and judges Job.

Elihu, son of Barakel the Buzite, said that Job was seeking to justify himself in his own eyes or by his own righteousness (see Job 34 – 37). I may be getting the verses or character name wrong, but my point is, Morris pointed to a “friend” in the story who told Job (paraphrase), “You seek to justify yourself based on your own righteousness, and that is wrong.”

Morris agreed with this take on Job by Elihu (or by whomever in the text spoke it) – but the text itself does not say this this was true of Job.

The text does not say that Elihu (or whomever it was in the text who said this) was correct about Job or about God on this.

God shows up at the end of the book of Job to say Job had God right all along, but that Job’s “friends” (such as Elihu) spoke falsely of God – and I think God said the “friends” also spoke falsely of Job, if memory serves.

It makes no sense to me, why, when God says the “friends” (including Elihu) got things wrong, Morris goes against God’s own interpretation to say that Elihu (or which ever friend it was) was correct – very bad biblical exegesis on Morris’ part.

The guy (or woman?) who tweeted me cited Job 42:6 as saying Job repented – but the text does not say Job repented of “self righteousness,” which is what Morris was citing Job for.

Here is what that section of Job says (Link):

Then Job replied to the Lord:

² “I know that you can do all things;
    no purpose of yours can be thwarted.
³ You asked, ‘Who is this that obscures my plans without knowledge?’
    Surely I spoke of things I did not understand,
    things too wonderful for me to know.

⁴ “You said, ‘Listen now, and I will speak;
    I will question you,
    and you shall answer me.’
⁵ My ears had heard of you
    but now my eyes have seen you.
⁶ Therefore I despise myself
    and repent in dust and ashes.”

(end quote)

It looks to me like one of the only things Job was repenting of in v.6 was:

Surely I spoke of things I did not understand,
    things too wonderful for me to know.

(end quote)

I do not see Job confessing in that section that he was relying on his own righteousness to be right with God and was also repenting of that.

---

One wonders why so many gender complementarians argue that women should not be preachers themselves but only listen to male preachers, when so many male preachers are heretics who get the Bible so horribly wrong on so many subjects.

This brings me to the topic of preacher Robert Morris and his sermon about the book of Job. (You can read the book of Job online (Link): here.)

I was watching Texas-based preacher Robert Morris (who is awful, for a lot of reasons I don’t want to get into in the here and now) of Gateway Church sermonizing about the Old Testament book of Job on TV a few days ago.

In the book of Job, God Himself refers to Job as a “righteous man” or communicates that concept.

As a matter of fact, God thinks Job is so great, godly, and righteous, he brags on Job to Satan. From the book of Job:

Then the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil.”

— end Bible verse quote–

Here are a few more excerpts from the book of Job itself:

 In the land of Uz there lived a man whose name was Job. This man was blameless and upright; he feared God and shunned evil.

— end Bible verse quote —

That sure sounds like a righteous man to me. If Job wanted to point to his righteousness to defend himself from the slander of his accusatory friends who show up later in the story, he would not be in the wrong for doing do.

If God Himself conveys that you are an upstanding kind of guy, it’s not bragging, or a sin of self-righteousness, for you to be in agreement with God on this, and to mention to your buddies you are righteous, godly, upstanding, what have you.

One Foot in Christianity, One Foot in Agnosticism – In a Faith Crisis

One Foot in Christianity, One Foot in Agnosticism  – In a Faith Crisis

November 2016. (There is a moderate amount of swear words in the post below)

Some of the points in the post, in brief (the long explanation is below):

• I accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior before I was ten years old
• I have read the entire Bible.
• I spent many years reading books ABOUT the Bible (e.g., books about its formation and history)
• I spent years reading Christian apologetic literature
  – so do NOT tell me that I “do not understand Christianity” or that I was “never a REAL Christian to start with”
• I currently have doubts about the Christian faith and/or aspects of the Bible
• I have not rejected Jesus Christ Himself
  (he’s pretty much Christianity’s only good feature or selling point, as far as I can see at this point)

• I am not an atheist
• I am not a Charismatic
• I am not a “Word of Faither”
• I was brought up under conservative, Southern Baptist and evangelical teachings and churches

• Even though conservative Christians claim to believe in the Bible, they
  • cannot agree on what the Bible means or how to apply it – this is a huge problem as I see it in the faith
  • they diminish the role of the Holy Spirit or deny Him and that He can work for Christians today, because they are “hyper sola scriptura” and have reduced the Trinity to “Father, Son, and Holy Bible,” (this is also problematic),
    they usually do this because they are hyper-cessationist and paranoid or hateful of Charismatic teachings or practices
  • they teach that most to all of the biblical promises are not for Christians today but are only for the Jews of 5,000 years ago, there-by teaching that the Bible is NOT relevant for people today  (this is also problematic)
• If you are a Christian, do not act like a smug dick about any of this and immediately disregard any points I have to make about God, the Bible, or other topics, because in your view, I am a “Non-Christian who was ‘never’ really saved” -not to mention, that is not even true.
  I was in fact “truly” saved, and I am / was, a “real” Christian.
• No, I don’t want to enumerate a detailed list of reasons why I have doubts about God, the Bible, or the faith.If I were to provide such a list or explanation, your average Christian would only want to debate each and every point to argue me back into fully believing. (A witnessing tip to Christians: doing that sort of thing is NOT an effective way of “winning back a lost sheep to Jesus.”)

---

DETAILED EXPLANATION

I find that people who are both Christian and Non-Christian (and several other categories of people I bump into on Twitter and other sites) get frustrated when they cannot easily box me in.

People seem to be more comfortable with labels, but I’m not sure what label I would give myself these days.

I have briefly tried to explain my current religious beliefs on my Twitter bio, and I explain them a little more on my blog’s “About” page and have mentioned them in a post or two over the course of the last few years I’ve been blogging here.

Here is my background:

I accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior prior to turning the age of ten.

That means: I believed that Jesus took my sins upon himself, he was without sin, he paid the price for my sins, and was raised from the dead three days after having been crucified – and if I believe in all that, if I put “saving faith in” Jesus (as opposed to mere intellectual assent), my sins have been forgiven by God, and I go to heaven when I die.

I read the entire Bible through when I was 18 years old, and afterwards, I read a lot of the Bible in the years after. Prior to that age, I had read portions of the Bible when younger.

On Not Filtering Every Choice Through the Bible

On Not Filtering Every Choice Through the Bible

This is one of those topics I’m working my way through right now. Maybe a year from now, my opinion will flip on it. But here is where I am now.

I was first made aware of this post from John Piper’s “Desiring God” web site via someone posting to SCCL Facebook group.

Here it is:

(Link):  How to Drink Orange Juice to the Glory of God by John Piper

Excerpts:

• I said that one of my reasons for believing this comes from 1 Corinthians 10:31. “Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.” I asked, “Is it sin to disobey this Biblical commandment?” Yes.
• …Some of you then asked the practical question: Well, how do you “eat and drink” to the glory of God? Say, orange juice for breakfast?
• ….Orange juice was “created to be received with thanksgiving by those whobelieve the truth.” Therefore, unbelievers cannot use orange juice for the purpose God intended—namely, as an occasion for heartfelt gratitude to God from a truth heart of faith.
• But believers can, and this is how they glorify God. Their drinking orange juice is “sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer.”

Yes, it’s an entire post explaining why and how Christians may drink Orange Juice to the glory of God.

This is a part of Christianity that I am glad to leave behind. In my faith crisis of the last few years, there have been some advantages to ceasing turning to the Bible as an authority in decision-making in life in every area.

Beauty, Marriage, Motherhood and Ministry – from New Life Blog

Beauty, Marriage, Motherhood and Ministry

I have done many blog posts about topics mentioned in this other blog post from New Life Blog, which I have linked to farther below.

A lot of conservative Christians sound no different than the secular culture they criticize in terms of the subjects of sex, a woman’s physical appearance, marriage, and so on.

For example, conservative Christians will tell single women who desire marriage that they shouldn’t be too wrapped up in their looks, that any man worth his salt will value you based on your character and brains, remember that Jesus loves you for who you are, not what you look like, so don’t burn yourself out on dieting…

Yet, these same Christians will turn around a moment later and tell Christian single women something like, “But remember, God created men to be visually oriented, so you MUST stay thin, pretty, and attractive, and wear make-up all the time, if you hope to attract and keep a man, and here are some dieting tips for you.”

Yes, Christians often speak out of both sides of their mouths on this topic.

Another annoying tendency I have seen from male Christian speakers, authors, and pastors is to refer to a biblical woman character’s physical appearance, even if it’s a tangent to the text at hand.

Male Christians will sometimes pause in the middle of a sermon or discussion on Adam and Eve, for example, to go on and on about how surely, since Eve was the only woman created directly by God, she must have been a sexy, babe-a-licious fox, yum yum.

Seriously, one Christian guy – a famous author who has his own weekly TV show – I’ve seen who brings this topic up about every time he discusses Adam and Eve practically starts to salivate when thinking about how hot and sexy Eve must have been.

I suspect this guy must have a porn addiction problem, or something of that nature; his extreme fixation on Eve’s appearance makes him seem creepy, perverted, and sexist.

I notice these male idiots never mention that Adam must have been a smoking hot, sexy, hunk of man. And believe you me, most women, even Christian ones, are also “visually oriented” and prefer a hot, good looking, buff man, to an ugly, scrawny, obese, or bald one.

At any rate, I present to you a link  to another blog page which discusses some of these topics and other ones:

(Link): Beauty, Marriage, Motherhood and Ministry from New Life Blog

This blog starts out by describing how women are frequently depicted in the Old Testament: often, women’s physical beauty or virginity is mentioned, and women are usually identified in relation to a man, such as their father, brother, or husband.

Here are excerpts:

• Women in the New Testament
• So, how many New Testament (NT) women are described as being beautiful? None. Not one.
•   Moreover, Paul and Peter dissuaded women from concentrating on their appearance; instead they encouraged women to focus on their character and good works. Admittedly these instructions were given mainly to wealthy married women, and not to potential brides.
• [cut pertinent Bible verses the blog author cites]
• Women in the New Testament are mentioned primarily in reference to their Christian faith and ministry, and not in terms of their beauty or marriageability.  We simply do not know whether any NT woman was particularly good looking, or not.
• Also, many NT women are not mentioned in connection with a male relative. This is unlike OT women who were (Link):  typically identified as either a wife, daughter, mother or sister of a certain man.
• We don’t even know the marital status of several NT women.

Man Suspected Of Using Bible Study To Molest Children In His Home

Man Suspected Of Using Bible Study To Molest Children In His Home

Yep, another fine example of why I gave up on the “be equally yoked” teaching, because even Bible using, Bible believing Christian men rape little children.

(Link): Man arrested for sex crimes on juveniles

(Link): Bible Study Teacher Arrested On Multiple Counts Of Sexual Molestation

(Link): Man Suspected Of Using Bible Study To Molest Children In His Home

• A man has been arrested in Corona, California, for allegedly teaching Bible study as an excuse to lure children into his private home and molest them.
•  According to CBS Local Los Angeles, 54-year-old Bible study teacher Shawn Edward Shaffer of Corona was taken into custody on Monday on suspicion of sexually molesting juveniles under the age of 16. Police say the man was possibly conducting Bible studies for youths in his home, and using that opportunity to take sexual advantage of minors. The Bible study teacher has not been officially charged, but authorities are investigating the truth behind his peculiar private Bible classes.
• The Bible teacher is being detained at Robert Presley Detention Center in Corona on $3 million bail, according to police officials. He is facing multiple accounts of sexual molestation of minors, which could mean Shaffer was regularly using Bible study as a trick to continually bring victims into his home.
• It’s unclear how many children were victimized by Shaffer’s Bible class ruse, because detectives were only recently made aware of the man’s crimes by fully grown men. Several adult males have come forward with allegations about the Bible teacher, claiming that they were sexually abused as children within the city of Corona. Authorities haven’t confirmed yet if these men are claiming to have attended Shaffer’s Bible study, but the implication seems to be that the man were victims of the Bible teacher.
• According to Inland News Today, Shaffer not only used Bible lessons as a method to lure children into his home. He would also hang around local skate parks, presumably to speak to the juveniles and advertise his Bible class.
• ———–

Related

(Link): Married Preacher With Two Kids of His Own Accused of 37 Sex Acts With Two Kids – According to News Story, He Also Sexually Harassed Female Co-Worker

(Link):  Teen-Raping Texas Pastor Gets life in Prison After using the Bible to Justify Abusing Women – Equally Yoked is BUNK

(Link): Youth Pastor Molests Daughter, Lead Pastor Dedicates Children to Satan

(Link): Married Youth Pastor Father of Four Caught Raping and Molesting Several Little Boys claims the molesting kept the boys sexually pure and cures them of homosexuality

(Link): Married Father Who Worked as Police Officer Raped Wife After Drugging Her and Murdered Her and Their Children

(Link): Father Has Sex With His Own Children, Forces Them to Have Sex with Dog, His Wife and Ex Wife Participate

More Musings about Applicability of the Old Testament, Via One Man’s Testimony About Jeremiah 29:11

I don’t have a link for this. I was watching Christian show “700 Club” about a week ago. There was a testimony by a guy on there who said he grew up with his family taking him to church and presenting an image of God as a violent jerk who predestines for you to suffer and have misery.

As this guy grew older, he had some tough times. I don’t recall his exact life story – I think he became a hard core drug addict, robbed little old ladies, was in a gang, and so on. I don’t remember the specifics.

I also don’t recall the exact context of how he heard Jeremiah 29:11 for the first time – I think he said he was invited to church by a friend, and the preacher quoted Jer 29.11 from the pulpit.

This guy had never heard Jer 29:11 before, but this verse really clicked for him.

He said for the first time in his life, he said he understood God’s character better: that the God he had been taught (probably in Calvinist or Reformed churches) is not the God of the Bible.

That is, when bad things happened to him in his life, he realized that those bad things were not God’s plan for him or his life (which is what he had been taught at a previous church in boyhood).

Here is Jeremiah 29:11:

• ¹¹ For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.

Reading or hearing that verse for the first time revoluntionized that guy’s life. It shifted his whole paradigm of who God is and gave him a sense of hope for the future. He became a Christian.

I am bringing this up because I keep seeing Christians online yell and scream that Old Testament verses are not, in their opinions, meant for Christians today – a view that does not completely make sense to me.

If they don’t get cranky about it, some of these Christians mock and ridicule Christians who use such Old Testament promises for themselves today. And these are usually the Christians who claim to be “sola scriptura.”

Assuming God exists: who is to say that God does not harken a certain Old Testament verse written specifically for Joe- Bob- the- Jew back in the year 3,245 B.C. for a Christian reading that verse today? I believe some Christians call this a “Rhema” word?

Just because a verse was written in first context for Edna the Hittite back in 4,893 BC does not necessarily mean that God does not think it cannot or does not apply it to a Christian today who is going through a particular circumstance.

It’s strange how hyper sola scripturaists continue to limit the Bible and its applicability; they make half the Bible null and void for anyone who is a Christian today.

Hyper Sola Scripturists, biblicists, whatever term they should be nailed with, tend to think that the Holy Spirit does not do miraculous works today (such as healings), and they think that the Old Testament is only for ancient Jews. Which leaves them with what, a weak, Deist God who refuses to intervene directly in his creation today and half a Bible that is dead, largely irrelevant, and moot?

I find it fascinating that a man who was lost said it took hearing Jeremiah 29.11 to turn his life around today, in 2015 or 2014, or whenever this pivotal point happened.

Some Christians will argue that Jer 29.11 (which is in the Old Testament) applies only to ancient Jews in their particular historical context of the time and not to Gentile believers today, but a man today, in or around 2015, found healing in that very verse. So, is Jeremiah 29:11 really only for ancient Jews when God (if he exists) is using it to reach Gentiles in 2015?

———————-

October 6, 2015  Update.

And I just saw this in my Twitter feed, via Crosswalk:

(Link): Stop Taking Jeremiah 29:11 Out of Context! http://buff.ly/1VqwGC4 

See? Christians are still debating if Jer 29.11 is applicable for Christians today or not. I can guarantee you that in several months time, there will either be a Christian on TV or in a blog post arguing the opposite of this Cross walk page – that Jer 29.11 is in fact applicable for believers today.

———————————-

Related posts:

(Link):  Does God’s Plan to Do You No Harm, Prosper You, And Give You Hope and A Future Involve You Dying In a Fiery Plane Crash? Regarding Jeremiah 29:11

(Link):  Gallup: Record Low 24% Believe Bible Is Literal Word of God (May 2017)

(Link):  Unanswered Prayer and Diversity of Doctrine and Interpretation (podcasts)

(Link): Christians Who Take the Bible Literally Cannot Agree On Much of Anything 

(Link): Christians Once Again Trying to Explain Who The Bible’s Promises Are For – TGC Article

Manly Christian Bros ‘Apologize’ for Letting Their Women Get Abortions / Bro Choice Men – Abortion Benefits Men Who Want No – Consequence – To – Men Sex With Women

Manly Christian Bros ‘Apologize’ for Letting Their Women Get Abortions / Bro Choice Men – Abortion Benefits Men Who Want No – Consequence – To – Men Sex With Women

This is from a left wing, secular feminist site (“Jezebel”), which is usually quite hostile towards Republicans and traditional values:

(Link): Manly Christian Bros ‘Apologize’ for Letting Their Women Get Abortions

This is one of those topics where I’m not particularly on either side of the debate.

I am pro-life, right wing, and don’t generally agree with left wing feminists often.

While I think I understand the motives behind this pro-life video (which I have not watched, I’ve only read the summary of it by the secular feminist author), I think it was maybe not thought out well (again, going by the feminist’s description of it).

I can’t say as though I agree with feminists that men should have no say at all in abortion.

Christians Once Again Trying to Explain Who The Bible’s Promises Are For – TGC Article

Christians Once Again Trying to Explain Who The Bible’s Promises Are For – TGC Article

Christians can’t seem to agree on when or if the promises in the Bible – especially Old Testament ones – apply to Christians today.

Here is another example of writers on another Christian site attempting to explain which promises are meant for Christians today and which are not:

(Link): Which Promises Are For Me? on The Gospel Coalition site, written by Jen Wilkin

I have more comments below this.

Excerpts:

• Not many things are more comforting than a promise made and kept. And not many things are more hurtful than a promise broken. Knowing we worship a God who keeps his promises is a source of deep joy. But misapplied, this knowledge can also lead us to treasure-hunt Scripture for promises in problematic ways.
• How can we know which promises are for us? How can we lay claim to the promises of the Bible without overstepping their application? Here are some common pitfalls to keep in mind as you study.

• Common Mistakes

  Confusing a promise with a principle. Promises are always fulfilled 100 percent of the time. Principles state general truths.

• The book of Proverbs is often mistaken for a book of promises, when in fact it is a book of principles. The principle of “train up a child in the way he should go and when he is old he will not depart from it” (Prov. 22:6) is generally true and wise to heed. But it is not a guarantee that every child raised with godly instruction will become a believer in Jesus.
• Ignoring the context. We often apply a promise to ourselves before considering its original audience or its historical, cultural, or textual context. In some cases, a promise was made to a specific person for a specific reason and has no further application beyond its immediate context. In other cases, the application can only be properly made after the promise is understood in its original context.
• God’s promise to Abram of land and offspring (Gen. 12:1–3) cannot be taken to mean God will give me a house or children. It can, however, be applied to mean he will give me a spiritual inheritance through Christ.
• Overlooking the “if.” Promises that contain an “If” require some form of obedience before we can expect them to come to pass in our lives. They are conditional.
• …Limiting a promise to your own understanding. Even when we rightly recognize a promise as intended for us, we often impose our own understanding of exactly how it will be fulfilled. Or we are tempted to impose our own timeline on its fulfillment.
• Yes, God does have a plan to prosper you and not to harm you (Jer. 29:11), but as in the case of the people to whom those words were originally written, that “you” is more likely a collective reference to the body of believers, and that plan may play out across centuries in ways we can’t possibly predict.
• To recognize this intent does not diminish the beauty of the promise at all. It actually enhances it.
• …Do your homework. Before you write it on a note card for your fridge, before you post it on Instagram or shop for it on a coffee mug or declare it your life verse, make a thorough study of where your promise lives in Scripture and in biblical history. Make sure it’s a general promise, not a specific promise to someone else or just a general principle to observe. Check for any “ifs” that might change its application.

The page goes on and on like that; click the link at top if you’re interested in seeing the full article.

Perhaps some Christians needed to be made aware of these things, but I’m over 40 years of age, have been a Christian since before I hit age ten, have read the entire Bible as well as many books about Christian theology and apologetics.

I don’t think I really need a basic primer on these things at this stage.

I find a lot of the points in the article are rather basic and based on common sense.

Even under her “Do Your Homework” section, I’m sorry, but Christians to this day still debate and fuss over if Jeremiah 29.11 is for believers only today (she mentions that passage in her article).

She seems to feel that Jer 29.11 is for ancient Israelites only, but I still find other Christians who believe it’s equally applicable to Christians in America in 2015.

Her article only adds to the confusion, in my view. That Christians have to keep explaining and teaching which biblical promises and verses apply to whom does not clarify the situation, but piles on.

I can guarantee you if Christians of other denominations read this page (I refer again to (Link): Which Promises Are For Me? ) that this lady wrote, they will each have their own particular objections or areas of disagreement.

—————–

Related Posts:

(Link):  Christians Who Can’t Agree on Who The Old Testament Is For and When or If It Applies

(Link):  Gallup: Record Low 24% Believe Bible Is Literal Word of God (May 2017)

(Link): More Musings about Applicability of the Old Testament, Via One Man’s Testimony About Jeremiah 29:11

(Link):   Does God’s Plan to Do You No Harm, Prosper You, And Give You Hope and A Future Involve You Dying In a Fiery Plane Crash? Regarding Jeremiah 29:11 and Its Application

(Link): Christians Who Take the Bible Literally Cannot Agree On Much of Anything 

(Link): Sometimes the Bible is Clear – Regarding Rachel Held Evan’s Post

Christians Who Take the Bible Literally Cannot Agree On Much of Anything

Christians Who Take the Bible Literally Cannot Agree On Much of Anything 

This is a page that touches on a topic I’ve brought up on my blog a time or two.

(Link):  Unpublished: Being Biblical Means Being Doctrinally Tolerant

The author of that ‘Unpublished’ page mentions Roman Catholicism.

As much as I consider the constant Protestant and Baptist disagreement over certain things in the Bible problematic, I don’t think the solution is becoming Roman Catholic and accepting that their Pope’s ex cathedra statements or their Magisterium is the answer.

Catholics, for one, get all sorts of things wrong – they believe that Mary was bodily assumed into Heaven; they believe that praying to or for the dead is acceptable; they believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary; they believe in Transubstantiation; they reject that salvation is by faith alone – all sorts of wrong things.

Then Roman Catholics tack on 3 or 4 books (called the Apocrypha) to the Jewish and Protestant canon to “prove” to the Protestants that yes, they have “biblical” support for some of their weird doctrines.

Although the Vatican tells Catholics that birth control is wrong and bad, and that pro-life is the way to go, I have seen many news reports that American Roman Catholic women get abortions and use birth control.

Several years ago, I even saw websites by American Roman Catholics who say they support the legalization of abortion. Catholics are not in unity – not even in doctrine, so I do wish they’d stop lobbing this accusation at Protestants, as though the RC is any better.

Their Pope and Magisterium can sit there all day long and claim that the official Roman Catholic stance on Topic X is “blah blah whatever,” but that doesn’t mean the rank and file Catholics are going to agree with it, or follow that doctrine or rule. Because sometimes they don’t.

I do by and large still believe the Bible should be taken literally – as opposed to the liberal Christians who treat the Bible with extreme skepticism or who act like it’s okay to treat the Bible as though it’s silly putty and warp it any way they want – but I do acknowledge some of the points raised in this page:

(Link):  Unpublished: Being Biblical Means Being Doctrinally Tolerant

Excerpts:

People who claim to literally interpret the inspired and inerrant Word of God do not agree on what the bible says.

Christian Smith calls this “pervasive interpretive pluralism.” And this pervasive interpretive pluralism isn’t just found among progressives and liberals. It is found among evangelicals and fundamentalists, among the very people who claim that they are reading the bible very, very literally.

Pervasive interpretive pluralism exists among biblical literalists.

Which brings us to the problem at the heart of Protestantism.

The problem at the heart of Protestantism is that the bible is unable to produce consensus. This isn’t a theological claim. This is an empirical fact.

Sola scriptura produces pluralism. The “bible alone” creates doctrinal diversity. Biblical literalism proliferates churches.

…The alternative is to be delusional, pretending that opening the bible brings everyone to a consensus. Unfortunately, that just doesn’t happen.