A Quick Response to Nonsensical Thoughts on Scripture

I need to respond in detail to a two-year old John Pavlovitz post which Relevant Magazine regularly reposts through social media.  I can respect that Relevant draws from various Christian teachers, but John Pavlovitz consistently writes against basic Christian doctrine.  He is wrong on many things, but his views on scripture are, yes, heresy.  I have previously given a couple detailed responses to his writings here, and have done so many more times when Mr. Pavlovitz posts his articles on Relevant's facebook page.

Obviously what I have to say won't make much sense unless you read his original post, available here.  It contains many illogical arguments and reeks of an attempt to justify his own unbiblical views.  Ultimately, that's what this post is about.  He disagrees with so much traditional Christian teaching that he must attack the source.

To start, the Bible is our only accurate source of who God is, who Jesus is, and who the Holy Spirit is.  While scripture itself is not God, it is our clearest way to know Him.  I am a big proponent of the importance of understanding the identity of God.  That's why theology is important.  It's not enough to just say "I love Jesus."  We need to be able to explain who Jesus is.  There are many versions of Jesus out there.  That's why scripture is so important.  Our feelings lie to us.  We may believe that God is speaking to us, but how do we know what we think God says to us is God and not our own wishful/delusional thinking?  We test it against...scripture.  Scripture is not always easy to understand, but that is our sin and fallibility, not scripture’s.  If we do not turn to the Bible, where else do we turn to?

Pavlovitz appeals to ridicule from the get-go here.  He says the Bible is difficult to understand, “especially the earlier, weirder stuff.”  He tries to convey to the reader at the very beginning, “yeah, there’s a lot of weird stuff in the Old Testament,” in order to diminish the text.  He belittles the text to make it smaller and less important than it is.  If he can successfully get the reader to be like, "huh, yeah, that is weird and probably isn't actually relevant today," Pavlovitz can have more success later in turning readers away from texts he himself does not like.  He paints with a broad brush because he does not want to wrestle with difficult things that would alter his worldview.

He then states that we call it the word of God, but barely crack it open.  He can speak for himself on this.  His writings demonstrate such.  Again, his goal is to use broad stereotypes in order to minimize the counter-arguments. 

Mr. Pavlovitz is outright ignorant when he says, “We’ve come to treat Scripture as the destination of our spiritual journey, rather than what it was for the earliest believers: essential reading material on the way to the Promised Land.”  Jesus, the Son of God, consistently referenced what we now know as Old Testament scripture and saw himself as the fulfillment of its prophecy.  Pavlovitz tosses in 2 Timothy 3:16, but then fails to grasp what that means.  Scripture is God-breathed.  These are God’s words.  The text, as written, is infallible.  Has this writer actually studied what the earliest Christians believed, particularly about Paul’s writing?  First Clement?  Origen?  Irenaeus?  Justin Martyr?  He would find how they revered it.  

This writer is additionally ignorant when he alleges scripture not describing itself as the word of God.  First, logically, how can Pavlovitz appeal to scripture as his justification when he himself is arguing that it is not the ultimate authority?  This is a logical fallacy.  Further, time and time again the writings from Old Testament prophecy quite literally state itself as “words of the Lord.”  In addition, Paul writes to the Thessalonians, “We also constantly give thanks to God for this, that when you received the word of God that you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word but as what it really is, God's word, which is also at work in you believers” (1 Thessalonians 2:13).  Again, some open-minded studying would help this writer. 

Pavlovitz states a red herring when he says taking scripture as the word of God is akin to elevating it “to the same level as God.”  Scripture is God’s word, not God Himself.  It contains His truth, His decrees, His plan for redemption, etc.  Yet God saves.  Consider this post and Pavlovitz as analogous.  This post tells of Pavlovitz and is not Pavlovitz himself.  This post is full of fallacies, biases, and nonsense.  This demonstrates that Pavlovitz is a false teacher, biased, and nonsensical.  The text reflects the writer, but is not the writer himself (duh).  If the Bible is God’s word, which it is, it is not God, but…get this…His words.  Just because people attempt to read their own biases into the text, as Pavlovitz  himself does, does not make the text wrong.

The writer deceives when he says, “The only religious worldview that makes the Bible the last and only word, is that of a God who is no longer living.”  Eternal truth is eternal truth.  This literally means when something is stated as true for all-time it will always be true.  God may still speak, but that does not indicate His truth changes.  Pavlovitz attempting to turn this into an accusation that believing in scripture’s inerrancy is to say God is no longer living is laughable.

Pavlovitz then states, “The Bible commands us not to add to the Scriptures, but that doesn’t mean that God can’t. That’s what prayer often yields; not God reciting the ancient text verbatim, but speaking anew to us.”  I would ask Pavlovitz what he would do about God allegedly telling someone to do something that goes against scripture.  Because if God is Truth, which He is, and scripture as recorded is the word of God, which it is, then God cannot go against Himself.  God still speaks today, but He does not contradict Himself.

Every month or so Relevant reposts this article.  Probably because it gets a lot of clicks, which is obviously important for a website.  Still, it’s probably the worst thing they regularly post, and Pavlovitz is the worst writer they regularly post.  I would encourage readers to take a look at resources such as “Readingthe Word of God in the Presence of God” by Vern Poythress, “Taking God at HisWord” by Kevin DeYoung, and “The Canon of Scripture” by F.F. Bruce for more reliable commentary on the usefulness of the Bible.