What is some "Common Christian Wisdom" that you've learned isn't true?

[RomansFiveEight]

I recently did a sermon series, "Five Things You Won't Find in the Bible", where I addressed several major themes that I hear from many Christians that aren't biblical. The series was really well received and I get a lot of questions, but I'm amazed at how many things people didn't know, did know, challenged, and didn't challenge.

So I thought as a topic that was both fun and challenging, we'd see if we over here in WP could come up with some topics for discussion framed in the idea of "Common Christian Wisdom", that perhaps, isn't true. As an example, capitalizing pronouns can be a way to show respect or adoration; and there's nothing inherently wrong with it. Though some Christians have started to believe that the Bible capitalized those pronouns originally, or that Christians Must capitalize pronouns. The reality is, it's a modern invention and the original scriptures and most Biblical translations, especially the earliest ones, do not capitalize pronouns.

Here's a little of what we covered in the sermon series;

"The Lord Helps Those that Help Themselves" - Not only is this phrase not found in the Bible, it's contradictory to tremendous amounts of scripture that suggest a responsibility for believers to help those in need, regardless of their ability to repay us, or even their thankfulness for receiving it. The Biblical qualification for receiving help from a Christian, is having a need. Period. The quote itself is actually a Ben Franklin quote, and he was paraphrasing greek philosophers, who used it mockingly.

"Where two or more are gathered in my name" - Often this scripture is read to mean that the 'minimum number' of Christians is two, or that the presence of Jesus requires a gathered group. The reality is, Jesus was referring to witnesses; evangelism. Quite simply, the more people who tell the world about Jesus, the harder it is going to be for the world to dismiss them. The more witnesses to something, the more likely people will believe it. So don't share the Gospel alone, Jesus is saying, find others to share it with you. This scripture is taken to mean something about gathered groups; but it's actually quite the opposite; it's meant to be about going forth!

"I can do all things..." - This famous scripture is quoted by athletes, put up in offices, and is usually framed in the context of "I can achieve all things through Christ". However, that's not what the greek tells us. Paul writes this in prison, writing to groups of believers who were, understandably, worried about him. Paul replies, basically "Don't worry, I can handle it". Some biblical translations make this clearer by using "Endure" in place of "do", which is probably a better translation anyway. "I can endure all things through Christ who strengthens me". This matters, because faith in God isn't about being able to accomplish whatever you'd like; it means that even if you don't accomplish it, God offers us strength to endure.

How about you? What would you add?

 

[Grafted In]

Romans 8:28King James Version (KJV)

28 "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose."

Most of the time I hear someone quote this verse they omit "the".

And we know all things work together for them that love God, to them that are called according to His purpose.

In a strange way the first time I read it and saw "the", I felt closer to God.

 

[circuitrider]

I hate to tell you this, but the KJV "the" isn't found in newer translations. And looking at the Greek I can see why. The definite article means basically "those who are called."

Why does the "the" mean that much to you? Can you expand that thought?

 

[circuitrider]

RomansFiveEight, the idea that the Bible itself is the "Word of God" (Or as they say down south Word-a-God") when the Bible actually says that Jesus is the Word of God. (See John 1)

 

[Grafted In]

I hate to tell you this, but the KJV "the" isn't found in newer translations. And looking at the Greek I can see why. The definite article means basically "those who are called."

Why does the "the" mean that much to you? Can you expand that thought?

I'll try.
First if all when I got saved most if not all believers I knew used the KJV. That's when I caught the omissions .
I think the reason I felt closer is that "the called" helped me see myself in the verse at a time when I was struggling with fear that I wasn't really saved.....a time when I was deeply entrenched in unforgiveness toward another.
That's about as clear as I can make it.

 

[circuitrider]

I'll try.
First if all when I got saved most if not all believers I knew used the KJV. That's when I caught the omissions .
I think the reason I felt closer is that "the called" helped me see myself in the verse at a time when I was struggling with fear that I wasn't really saved.....a time when I was deeply entrenched in unforgiveness toward another.
That's about as clear as I can make it.

I like that! Thanks for sharing.

I do believe that we are called. I do believe that God is specifically reaching out to us and loving us by the grace he gives us each day.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

Cool!

Yes, Biblical translations are nuanced and difficult. Sometimes people compare to KJV to others and notice missing words here and there and claim the newer translations are "omitting" something but, usually, the reality is that the KJV added it.

But that is a cool story!

And yes, CW, "the Word of God" is a bit of a pet peeve. It is possible, indeed important, to "Preach the Word of God", but in doing so we confess Jesus Christ and proclaim his message. It doesn't mean "preaching from the Bible", though the two go hand in hand. The Bible isn't the Word of God; that's Jesus! And it's important because the myriad of verses that reference "The Word of God" make a lot more sense and have much more meaning when they are attributed to Christ, and not read as if the Bible were referring to itself.

 

[Grafted In]

Here's one example that is an exception to the rule, in my opinion:

King James Bible
Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.

One can't be loosed from a wife if he was not bound to a wife.

This, of course was in the context of your position in life at the moment you become born again.

At least one other translation words it "are you single".

 

[RomansFiveEight]

The problem, again, is using the KJV as it's own litmus test; comparing other translations to the KJV, english-for-english, on the face, and comparing theology drawn from it. Rather, translations in question should be challenged against the original texts (the Greek, in most cases) they translate by qualified scholars in the field. It matters not which translation makes a stronger case for a theological precept; but rather which more accurately reflects the early greek in a way that can convey the same message to 21st century english readers. As crazy as it sounds; we actually have access to older manuscripts today than they did in 1611.

The Bible, both in it's original form and it's later translations, is full of figures of speech, metaphors, turns of phrase, and other literary techniques that can make discussions about it challenging, for sure. I'm not sure why, but I've always gotten a kick out of the story of David and Uriah; when David tells Uriah to "wash his feet". The context clearly confirms what a scholar will tell you, "wash your feet" was a then-euphamism for sex. (Uriah responds "How can I have sex with my wife when my men are still sleeping on the ground", for example. Some english translations will trade euphamism for euphamism and say "How can I sleep with my wife", which might make a reader assume they literally mean 'sleep', which misses the message that David was trying to create a probable scenario in which Uriah was the father of David's illegitimate child with Bathsheba, rather than 'facing the music' when she turns up pregnant and her husband is miles away fighting a war. He wanted the two to have sex so that he could simply claim the child was Uriah's.) I like that example because it's pretty silly (I don't know of anyone who uses 'wash your feet' in that context today), but it points out how challenging language can be and why the Bible can't be read simplistically, but must be studied, exegeted, and understood.

 

[grandvizier1006]

Glory to God in the highest, and on Earth peace...to those with whom God is pleased. Not everybody.

Anyone who does not own a sword should get one...is not a call to support the 2nd ammendment.

Gog and Magog are not Russia. In fact, they might have been (!) Assyria.

Jesus "never" wants us pointing out sexual immorality.

churches should provide for the poor. Churches can sometimes barely manage their own facility, like the government. We don't need moochers, but we don't need apathy, either.

genesis 1 gives us the earth's age. but the ancient Hebrews didn't see things like that, of course.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

grandvizier you've brought up an interesting point;

Many Christians today view passages in the Old Testament in a way very different than the Hebrew readers who read them for 6,000+ years prior to any such people as those called Christian. This includes stories about creation, perceptions of hell, and so on. One frequent poster here is well versed in the Hebrew way of doing things and I'm sure he'd agree, that many Christians read the Old Testament differently than the context it was written in.

Literal understandings of Genesis, for example, don't make much sense when thousands of years of Jewish history and hundreds of years of Christian history didn't read it that way; only some Christians in recent decades. At some point, that should be a red flag.

 

[Dave-W]

Romans 8:28King James Version (KJV)
28 "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose."
Most of the time I hear someone quote this verse they omit "the".
And we know all things work together for them that love God, to them that are called according to His purpose.
In a strange way the first time I read it and saw "the", I felt closer to God.

Feelings can be incorrect.

I do not know this for a fact, but suspect that the "THE" was added by the translators to more comply with Calvinist sentiments that were invading England and Scotland at the time. "The Called" or "The Elect" when used in a certain sense is a calvinist concept.

 

[Dave-W]

RomansFiveEight, the idea that the Bible itself is the "Word of God" (Or as they say down south Word-a-God") when the Bible actually says that Jesus is the Word of God. (See John 1)

Yes, Jesus is the Living Word of God. But He Himself referred to the written scriptures as the [written] Word of God:

John 10:35 If he called them gods, to whom the Word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken),

 

[Dave-W]

Many Christians today view passages in the Old Testament in a way very different than the Hebrew readers who read them for 6,000+ years prior to any such people as those called Christian. This includes stories about creation, perceptions of hell, and so on. One frequent poster here is well versed in the Hebrew way of doing things and I'm sure he'd agree, that many Christians read the Old Testament differently than the context it was written in.

If you are meaning me - then I do concur wholeheartedly.

Much of modern evangelicialism has taught that the ONLY proper way to read and intrepret the OT is thru the lens of the NT. But in reality that is like looking in the wrong end of the telescope.

The NT writers were ALL very well versed in the totality of OT scripture; as were some of the original audiences. So they wrote from that perspective.

 

[Qyöt27]

As an example, capitalizing pronouns can be a way to show respect or adoration; and there's nothing inherently wrong with it. Though some Christians have started to believe that the Bible capitalized those pronouns originally, or that Christians Must capitalize pronouns. The reality is, it's a modern invention and the original scriptures and most Biblical translations, especially the earliest ones, do not capitalize pronouns.

It might very well have to do with the fact that English pronouns have simplified a lot since splitting from other Germanic languages, since in modern German (unknown if the older forms did this too) the formal pronoun is always capitalized as a matter of proper grammar. English used to have formal pronouns too ('you' was the formal pronoun and 'thou' was the informal pronoun), but even by the time of the KJV, 'thou' was discouraged in daily speech because it was increasingly offensive to upper classes and the polite 'you' had merged into a general all-purpose pronoun. The translators of the KJV kept the formal/informal distinction intact in order to reflect the grammatical distinctions in the original languages.

So if the formal pronoun was generally capitalized at the time, 'You' in reference to God makes sense (capitalized 'He/His', not so much though). Then the formal You stopped being capitalized in most contexts, but it managed to hang on in religious situations.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

It might very well have to do with the fact that English pronouns have simplified a lot since splitting from other Germanic languages, since in modern German (unknown if the older forms did this too) the formal pronoun is always capitalized as a matter of proper grammar. English used to have formal pronouns too ('you' was the formal pronoun and 'thou' was the informal pronoun), but even by the time of the KJV, 'thou' was discouraged in daily speech because it was increasingly offensive to upper classes and the polite 'you' had merged into a general all-purpose pronoun. The translators of the KJV kept the formal/informal distinction intact in order to reflect the grammatical distinctions in the original languages.

So if the formal pronoun was generally capitalized at the time, 'You' in reference to God makes sense (capitalized 'He/His', not so much though). Then the formal You stopped being capitalized in most contexts, but it managed to hang on in religious situations.

Great info!

Either way, on the issue of pronouns; that's just it! It's all context and history. It's not found in the original texts and failing to capitalize pronouns is not some grave sin. I've had people tell me that certain translations of the Bible are "wrong" or "bad", because they don't capitalize pronouns. But the greek didn't either (in some cases it didn't capitalize anything!), so which is more important; 17th century grammar or staying true to the texts? For me, it's staying true to the texts!

 

[JCFantasy23]

- Not only is this phrase not found in the Bible, it's contradictory to tremendous amounts of scripture that suggest a responsibility for believers to help those in need, regardless of their ability to repay us, or even their thankfulness for receiving it. The Biblical qualification for receiving help from a Christian, is having a need. Period. The quote itself is actually a Ben Franklin quote, and he was paraphrasing greek philosophers, who used it mockingly.

"Where two or more are gathered in my name" - Often this scripture is read to mean that the 'minimum number' of Christians is two, or that the presence of Jesus requires a gathered group. The reality is, Jesus was referring to witnesses; evangelism. Quite simply, the more people who tell the world about Jesus, the harder it is going to be for the world to dismiss them. The more witnesses to something, the more likely people will believe it. So don't share the Gospel alone, Jesus is saying, find others to share it with you. This scripture is taken to mean something about gathered groups; but it's actually quite the opposite; it's meant to be about going forth!

"I can do all things..." - This famous scripture is quoted by athletes, put up in offices, and is usually framed in the context of "I can achieve all things through Christ". However, that's not what the greek tells us. Paul writes this in prison, writing to groups of believers who were, understandably, worried about him. Paul replies, basically "Don't worry, I can handle it". Some biblical translations make this clearer by using "Endure" in place of "do", which is probably a better translation anyway. "I can endure all things through Christ who strengthens me". This matters, because faith in God isn't about being able to accomplish whatever you'd like; it means that even if you don't accomplish it, God offers us strength to endure.

How about you? What would you add?

Excellent idea for a topic.

I've come to despise:
"The Lord Helps Those that Help Themselves"
My mom would quote that and I hear it from the mouths of random people. It's usually what people say to try to boost someone up who they don't think is trying enough. The only thing this does if you are one of those people trying, discouraged, and not having luck - is make you feel a little distant from God/hopeless. It's like saying it to those who have mental illness or addictions or stuff they are trying to rise up from, or those who are unemployed and not having luck getting hired. Discouraging.

And of course the bible puts out that it's fine to go to God with all requests and supplications, in all and everything, and that He is there for all His followers at all times.

"Where two or more are gathered in my name"
I've seen this used to justify not going to church buildings, but I haven't seen it used much.


"I can do all things..."
Thank you for clearing this one up! The endure makes much more sense. Obviously I can't accomplish all I may want to - people do have legit limitations. We try our best, but this scripture is shown inaccurate if we do not accomplish everything we try or set our minds to.

 

[circuitrider]

Good list JCFantasy!

I'd add, "God will never give you more than you can handle...."

 

[Maid Marie]

This - Where two or more are gathered in my name.

And anything by Ray Vanderlaan and Lois Tverberg. They write on the Jewish context of the bible. Everything they write blows my mind away.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

Good list JCFantasy!

I'd add, "God will never give you more than you can handle...."

This.

I am so frustrated when I hear this. There's wrong theology (contrary to the teachings of Christ and the will of God as best we know it), bad theology (usually borne of logical fallacies, bias, and a mixed bag of poor scriptural understandings and ignorance of Christian history, much of what's posted above fits here); and then there's dangerous theology. This statement falls in the later category. Because it can shatter someones faith.

Faith that's built in straw isn't going to last. God won't give you more than you can handle isn't supported by any scripture; and most importantly, there might be a time when life really, really sucks. So the people going through it have two options; 1) Believe God has forsaken them, or 2) Believe, on top of everything else, their faith must be lacking because they believe God won't give them more than they can handle.

God doesn't GIVE us the bad in the world. Sin is not the will of God. However, sin does exist, evil exists, bad things exist. God has not chosen to shield us, universally, from those things. It might be more than we can be expected to handle. It doesn't mean God doesn't love us and weep alongside us. And, besides, it's not found in scripture.

I consider once-saved always-saved and other such theologies up there in the category of "dangerous", because they actually have the potential to put a persons faith and relationship with God in jeopardy. Again, poor theology won't separate us from the kingdom, it'll just harm our ability to serve God to the fullest. Dangerous theology threatens to drive a wedge between us and God.