Being biblical and Christlike not always the same?

[PurpleRabbit187]

Hi everyone, gosh a post from a lecturer at my university has gotten me really confused today and I was wondering if you could help. It goes as follows "not everything biblical is Christlike. We are no called to follow the bible but to follow Christ.". I know this quote might not sit well with some- but lets discern, what could be meant by it? How do we reconcile such a statement with Christ being the living word, the Word incarnate? What do we mean by being biblical? Thank you and God bless

 

[BrianJK]

Well, we aren't all called to do all the stuff God commanded Ezekiel to do, for one.

 

[Ken Behrens]

What the Old Testament begins to expound, Christ fulfills. Because the OT is not the fulfilled word of God, it contains many things we should not do today (like kill adulterers, or offer animal sacrifices, for example) and others we do not need to do (like avoid eating pork). This is what your teacher means (I hope).

If you follow Christ, you eventually learn to fulfill everything God expects, and thus everything to which the OT points. That is the reason it is easy to get confused on this issue. Paul says it so nicely in Romans, that "all things are lawful for me, but not profitable for salvation". The salvation Christ earned, if we are willing to follow Him completely, makes it unnecessary to think about keeping the law, as we sort of do it automatically.

 

[PurpleRabbit187]

thank you for the insight Ken. I appreciate it

 

[Ken Behrens]

thank you for the insight Ken. I appreciate it

You are welcome.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

In addition - not in contradiction - to what Mr. Behrens said, usually being 'Biblical' involves scrupulously adhering to one single facet of Biblical text and ignoring others.

Usually in the form of pointing out others error's and failures of good conduct, while ignoring the command to love (agapeo) others.

 

[PurpleRabbit187]

Thank you Archie for your insight

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Thank you Archie for your insight

You are most welcome, Agulhas. I must admit that particular insight came (comes) from the Lord correcting MY attitude.

 

[Soyeong]

Hi everyone, gosh a post from a lecturer at my university has gotten me really confused today and I was wondering if you could help. It goes as follows "not everything biblical is Christlike. We are no called to follow the bible but to follow Christ.". I know this quote might not sit well with some- but lets discern, what could be meant by it? How do we reconcile such a statement with Christ being the living word, the Word incarnate? What do we mean by being biblical? Thank you and God bless

Hello,

Perhaps he was talking about instances where people acted on their own accord and sinned, such as when David committed adultery. Or in 1 Corinthians 10, we are told to use Israel's disobedience to God's law as an example of what not to do. However, if they are saying that any of the commands given by God in the Bible do not instruct us how to be Christlike, then it is false because Jesus is God and he lived out a perfect example of how to walk in obedience to the Father's commands, which we are told to follow (1 Peter 2:21-22).

 

[Archie the Preacher]

-snip- We are no called to follow the bible but to follow Christ."

I didn't respond to this. One cannot follow Christ without following the Bible. The ONLY reliable source is the Bible. Without the Bible text, everyone would be required to follow one's own 'promptings' and 'feelings'.

The argument is Christians need to follow all the Bible, not just 'some' (even 97%) and ignore the rest.