^^ I agree. I was amazed when I tried to find a good devotional book and couldn't. All the ones I've seen are poorly written. And I can't identify with them at all. Most of them are very vague and general. Isn't the point of reading devotions to understand God's word more, and better understand who God is? I don't see how people are going to be able to do that when all devotions give is more generalization, and repeat things they already know.
It's much better to do something more in-depth. Like join a discussion group like this one.
~Riella
I might be a bit extremist here, but I think doing away with all devotionals completely would be in the best interest of all. Devotionals take away from the truth and purity of the Bible, and dance with reason instead of faith much too often. They try to replace someone's confusion with the perfect Word of God with the comfort of the Fallen Man's words. The only way to find satisfaction with the Word of God is through the Word of God, not through the "explanations" of Man (unless of course these ideas come directly from the Bible.)
To be frank, belief is not reasonable. There is no empirical evidence to support God, and some Christians just are not willing to accept this fact and try to give empirical evidence for there being a God, which you cannot do. Which is why the belief of God is a belief, not a fact.
"Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It's not."
- The Doctor.
Conceptually, I agree with you. However, I will say there are some that are worth keeping around. These are the ones that assist someone in reading the Bible. Topographical devotions about a particular theme can be good. How many people out there know how to find Scripture about forgiveness, getting past the hard times, or things like that? Unfortunately not many, and that's mostly in part of lack of reading the Word. So some devotionals do help with establishing a system of reading the Word.
But one of the real reasons people turn to a devotion over the Word is because it is so much easier to read a devotional, no matter how good, over the Word. This is because the enemy does not want us getting into God's Word and will resist us. It is also because the Word is living and active and it will convict us. We often don't want that, so we'll read something else instead. You can read a devotion as many times as you want and eventually you are going to get everything you can out of it. But with the Word, it doesn't matter how many times you read it, God always has something that will jump out. For example: in Ephesians 6:17, Paul describes the Sword of the Spirit as the Word of God. We often interpret that as the Bible. But this is not true. The Bible is the 'Logos' complete Word of God. The Sword of the Spirit is the 'Rhema', breathed/spoken Word of God. It's what God says at that moment for that given situation. The Word in Hebrews 4:12 is the 'Logos' Word of God, also described as a sword, that is living and active. You can see that one could go a ways with just a study on the comparative uses of 'Rhema' and 'Logos'.
So all that being said, I think it is foolish to not build upon the knowledge of the saints that went before us. But we must recognize that they are Fallen Men and nothing can ever equal a direct study of the Word of God. So while I am on that, how do you study the Bible?
The way I do it with my Intervarsity Chapter is called Manuscript. It's where we print out a copy of the passage we intend to study, and mark it up with observations we see. We note common themes, tones, contrasts, repeated words, etc and from there share and discuss what we see without looking into further resources unless necessary. When you get a big passage at once, the ideal thing is to lay it all out so you can mark connecting points on one page to another if that is what you find. It helps put the whole passage into context and not just one page at a time.
Be watching for the release of my spiritual warfare novel under a new title: "Call to Arms" by OakTara Publishing. A sequel (title TBD) will shortly follow.
Conceptually, I agree with you. However, I will say there are some that are worth keeping around. These are the ones that assist someone in reading the Bible. Topographical devotions about a particular theme can be good. How many people out there know how to find Scripture about forgiveness, getting past the hard times, or things like that? Unfortunately not many, and that's mostly in part of lack of reading the Word. So some devotionals do help with establishing a system of reading the Word.
Hmm, I'm not sure we're talking about the same things. I think that commentaries are something everyone can find some benefit from. This is because most commentaries take what the Scripture is saying and thrives on its ideas (such as the commentaries of John Calvin), and does not come up with its own. Devotionals often take an idea from the Bible and come up with a whole separate idea of their own which would appear Biblical, but is not always so. I agree that we should build on what the saints have brought forward as well, but perhaps not in the form of devotionals. Like I said, I think we agree on a lot of things, but our definition of "devotionals" may be a bit different.
"Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It's not."
- The Doctor.
Well it depends...
Sometimes if something's bothering me I'll look it up in the correspondence (right word?) section, and read a few sections relating to a similar word or words. Other times I'll just open it up and let him guide me to where I have to go, I'll read a few chapters at a time, and I almost always find something new, or something relative to a recent situation this way. Recently I've been reading the final chapters of the old testament, since I've been neglecting that part for a long time but in doing so I've learned so much
When I was home my family was doing a bible study together, where we read sections out of one or two devotional books (one was a Billy Graham one, can't remember the other) and a passage from the Bible every night. I liked the Billy Graham one because it gave you a section of the Bible to read with each entry. The other one was ok, but it didn't do to much for me.
"The mountains are calling and I must go, and I will work on while I can, studying incessantly." -John Muir
"Be cunning, and full of tricks, and your people will never be destroyed." -Richard Adams, Watership Down
Wow, lots of great thoughts about and mostly against most devotionals.
The worst sort of excuse I heard in response was "it's only fiction!" which is... an insult to fiction
That statement interested me. I'd like to know more about what you mean by that. Why do you think calling it "only fiction" is an insult to fiction, and why do you feel it's bad to insult fiction, when fiction is something that isn't real? (Not saying I agree or disagree. I would just like to hear more of your opinion on this.)
As a NarniaWeb member, I'm guessing you might agree that it's akin to an "insult" to say "it's only fiction," meaning that it's Just Entertainment or not relevant to real life, or something that doesn't change one's life. One thing all NarniaWebbers seem to have in common, though: we're here on this site because C.S. Lewis, through his Chronicles of Narnia, not only gave us wonderful, imagination-sparking stories, but pointed us to the true Lion of Judah, in his portrayal of the suppose-Jesus-did-this-in-another-world lion of the land of Narnia, Aslan.
But here are a few other reasons I said "but it's only fiction" seems an insult to fiction, in no particular order:
1) I'm a fiction reader and writer, so I'm admittedly biased.
2) Jesus used fiction, in the form of parables to make salient points about the Kingdom of Heaven and Himself. It's the only other art medium, besides direct exposition of doctrine, that the Bible records Him using (not songs, poetry or biography). Obviously He felt storytelling was important to convey truth even using made-up characters, places and events.
3) As noted above about Narnia, fiction is life-changing. And as I mentioned before, Shack defenders seem to know this. But it seems they think it's okay to take it seriously if the effect seems positive, but when asked if there are negative effects, they say "it's only fiction." The fact is, while we're responsible for our own sins from our own thoughts from our own evil hearts, External Stuff such as fiction can definitely affect us, for good or bad. So to say "it's just fiction" seems naive.
4) The best fiction authors work hard at their craft and have given us incredible stories in many different media, including books, films and television programs -- Narnia, The Lord of the Rings, Star Trek, Harry Potter, Avatar: The Last Airbender (note: of course I am only referring to the animated series as great storytelling). To denigrate all fiction does makes me a bit defensive on their behalf.
I heard you say something once -- I believe it was during a podcast -- where you said C.S. Lewis got points incorrect. I think two examples you gave were the Trilemma and Total Depravity. Were those the only points he got incorrect? And also, how are they incorrect?
Hmm, trying to think about any objection I might have outlined about the Trilemma. The only issue with that might be -- I have heard this from some atheist pundits -- that it leaves out a fourth option about the claims of Christ, that they were made up by someone else in retrospect and He never actually claimed to be God. So, something like Liar/Lunatic/Lord/and Legend. (But the "Legend" notion can be rebutted partly by the fact that the disciples went to their deaths for a "legend." Also, skeptics have the wrong foundation to make that accusation anyway; Christians shouldn't go along and try to prove the Bible true based on the skeptics' presupposition that the Bible is not true anyway.)
Total depravity, though: Lewis seems to have completely misunderstood what that term means, especially in The Problem of Pain in which he said:
The doctrine of Total Depravity -- when the consequence is drawn that, since we are totally depraved, our idea of good is worth simply nothing -- may thus turn Christianity into a form of devil worship.
[Later] "I disbelieve that doctrine partly on the logical ground that if our depravity were total we should not know ourselves to be depraved, and partly because experience shows us much goodness in human nature.
Two problems: 1) Total depravity does not say that humans know no good at all, but simply that whatever "good" they do is from God-ignoring or -rejecting motivations, 2) Total depravity does not mean there is no good in the world at all, but that it's insufficient to please God.
Some theologians, including R.C. Sproul (if I recall rightly), say that a better term might be Total Inability, saying that no matter what "good" man does, it's not enough to meet God's standards of holiness. I'd support that change, if there was any way to enforce it, especially because that way we don't need to alter the T in "TULIP," the shorthand for the so-called "five points of 'Calvinism.'"
He explains that “total depravity” does not mean that people are as bad as they possibly could be. Rather, he explains that man’s whole being has been affected by sin, and that our only hope is Christ, who is holy and perfect.
Despite himself, and his theology fail by misunderstanding what Total Depravity has meant historically in the field of Christian theology, Lewis did seem understand that without God's intervention, man is hopeless and that his feeble attempts at Being Good mean nothing apart from Christ.
About the "sin is its own punishment" line (from The Shack and some other pop-theology strains of thought): yes, Scripture shows us that sin by itself brings really nasty consequences. But the problems result when people try to say that sin is only its own punishment, and downplay the truth that sin's consequences won't be just in this life. God is a God of love, and by definition -- His definition, not ours -- that means He must punish evildoers. Young, The Shack author, has overtly denied Hell. But some Christians in effect do the same thing by putting their belief in Hell in a "filing cabinet" somewhere, and not letting it affect their ministry or other beliefs at all. They seem to act like they can be the "good cop" Christians and talk about God being love, and Heaven, and things like that, while leaving it to Some Other Person/Ministry/Church, the "bad cop" Christians, to fill in the harder-to-take God has Wrath parts.
I think that's kind of unfair, apart from being un-Biblical and more "loving" than Jesus Himself was. Of course, nobody should want to correct against this by pulpit-slamming and gleefully expounding on how bad Hell will be, either. We need not fear-filled converts, but tear-filled converts ("I'm so bad, and God is so good and so merciful that He saved me anyway?! That's incredible! How could I not want to get more of Him?").
Which is why God wants us to avoid these things. He only wants what's best for us.
Which is Himself. If He offered people anything less -- and put up with them when they took His good gifts but wanted nothing to do with them -- He would be cruel for withholding His best: Himself. But that also makes the cruelty of people who want God's good gifts, such as morality, family and possessions, but reject Him Personally, seem even worse.
Finally, about The Shack's "God-is-a-giiiiirrrlll,-tee-hee-hee" ...
The part a lot of people seem to have a problem with is the part about God being a woman. But I don't think the author was trying to say that God actually is a woman.
I think that issue is immaterial, because either way, The Shack's author was saying there could be some better way for God to appear besides the way He has already appeared, the second Person of the Trinity, as a Man on Earth: Jesus Christ. Why try to trump that? Jesus was awesome, so loving and powerful, the epitome of God's revelation to His people (Hebrews 1). Any person who misses that and wants a Something More isn't paying attention and needs the Spirit (1 Cor. 2:14).
Plus it's just cliche to do the whole "God-is-a-girrrlll,-tee-hee-hee" thing.
Altogether, though, it's not at all loving, toward God or to readers, to correct for actual wrong beliefs about God with the exact-opposite wrong beliefs -- as if more of the same will fix the problems? And (this may be very unpopular to say, but it's been true in my own life, I can say for sure!) a lot of times we're not nearly as "wounded" as we think we are. Instead we're worse! And the Biblical Gospel is the only cure, not preaching only certain parts of it louder than others. Wish more Christian authors would understand that, and create nonfiction and fiction books that would include what we do know about God's real nature more accurately.
Speculative Faith
Exploring epic stories for God's glory.
Blogs, guest authors, novel reviews, and features on hot fiction topics.
^^ Those are great points! I agree with everything you said, I believe.
Wish more Christian authors would understand that, and create nonfiction and fiction books that would include what we do know about God's real nature more accurately.
You may be doing more than just wishing. You may be helping to fix it. I'm actually an aspiring author of Christian fiction myself, and I read your posts/blogs, and always try to keep what you say in mind when it comes to Christian books and authors.
One point I would like to make about fiction though, where there is a way you can say "It's just fiction" and not mean it as an insult. It could be the way some of these people mean it. And that way is, since it's just a story or example, it may be there only to prove a certain point, and the way it's proven may not be meant to be taken literally. I'll give an example of what I mean.
I'm going to use one of Jesus's parables as an example. In the "Ask, Seek, Knock" example, it portrays a man knocking on the door of a house of another man, because he needs something. But the second man doesn't want to answer. But because the first man keeps knocking, he will answer eventually. The first man, the one knocking, symbolizes us. And the second man symbolizes God. The point of the illustration is that we should keep asking and keep seeking God.
But, technically the second man is not a very accurate portrayal of God when it comes to his characteristics. God doesn't ignore his children when they knock, and he never gets too tired to answer. So if you look at it that way, it could be called an inaccurate example.
But it wasn't wrong to use the example, obviously, since Jesus used it. The man didn't have to be a perfect picture of God, because that wasn't the point of the illustration. Not every part of a fictional story/example has to be accurate to real life and real circumstances, because it's not real life -- it's just an example, or just a story, or just fiction. So in this case, "Just fiction" means, because it's a story and not real, it doesn't have to be completely like the real thing in every way. All it has to do is serve it's purpose in illustrating a certain point. And that could be what people mean when they say it. Does that make sense?
(Of course, Jesus also pointed out that God does care about His children and doesn't get tired of answering them, unlike the man in the parable. So when authors do say something that isn't true to life in their books when it comes to God or Christianity, it's probably a good idea to also put some note or disclaimer at the front of the book, or in the end or footnotes. )
~Riella
Well, remember guys (and gals ) Devotionals are not meant to replace the Bible, nor are they meant as an alternate source of daily Bible reading, unless it is a devotional that takes you through the Bible in a set amount of time (say, 52 weeks, for example). However, devotionals can be an incredible source of inspiration!
My sister uses the "Chicken Soup for the Soul" series as her devotionals. Obviously all devotionals are written from a human perspective, but that's fine, because we all need someone to identify with us sometimes.
There are devotionals specifically geared toward married couples, new parents, grandparents, boyfriends, girlfriends, cooks, nannies, pet lovers, military members, moms, dads, daughters and sons. The list is endless, and not all devotionals are appropriate for everyone.
The main thing with devotionals is like everything else, use common sense, and realize that no devotional is meant to be cannon, but rather a source of inspiration.
"None of this fazes us ...I'm absolutely convinced that nothing—nothing living or dead, angelic or demonic, today or tomorrow, high or low, thinkable or unthinkable—absolutely nothing can get between us and God's love..." Romans 8:39
We realise devotions aren't cannon. What we're arguing here is that they're meant to help us grow in our faith in Christ and explore it more deeply but more often than not, they only provide spiritual milk. Sometimes they're even non-biblical.
Currently watching:
Doctor Who - Season 11
Basically, devotions are good if they're good, and devotions are bad if they're bad. lol
If you can find devotionals which are accurate to God's Word, in-depth instead of vague, and helpful to your Spiritual growth, than great! That's a very good thing to find, if you can. Provided, of course, that you know your Bible well enough to recognize the times that the devotionals are not accurate (Which every devotional probably will be at some time, since they are written by erring humans). But if you can't find good devotionals, then don't waste your time and thought on them. And if you don't know your Bible well enough, then... then put the devotionals down and read your Bible instead, for Pete's sake!
Above all, you never want to let devotionals, or any other kind of book, replace the Bible to you. It's too easy to get caught up in someone else's ideology, and you have to be on your guard when it comes to that.
Plus, a lot of people have an attitude where they say, "Well, I'm too busy to read the Bible itself, but devotionals are shorter and take less time, so I'll read that instead!" This obviously is not a good idea. For one thing, it's letting something replace God's Word. For another, it causes you to forget God's Word over time and be open to whatever false ideas the devotionals have to say. But most of all, it's kind of an excuse for the people who are "too busy for God". I mean, if you're too busy with work, hobbies, etc. to even read one chapter of the Bible (And Bible chapters aren't that long, anyway) then how can you have the time to really spend with God, getting to know Him, praying, praising, etc.? How is that putting Him first in your life?
The question of whether devotionals are good or bad really depends. It depends on the devotionals, and it depends on what kind of person you are.
~Riella
Above all, you never want to let devotionals, or any other kind of book, replace the Bible to you. It's too easy to get caught up in someone else's ideology, and you have to be on your guard when it comes to that.
Indeed, I agree with this. If the purpose of a devotional is to give a great reminder every day as to who God is and what he does, then it's good. But, if a devotional is just a person trying to tell people how he/she runs their life and how you should to, that's bad. Simple!
Sig by greenleaf23.
So, I have a question now.
I'm a Calvinist, so of course my Bible doesn't contain the books of the Apocrypha. But my friend, who is Catholic, has a Bible that does. And he wants to know why I believe the parts in my Bible but not the parts in his Bible, why they were taken out of my Bible, what gave the right for the Protestants to take it out in the first place, and how we as humans are able to tell which books of the Bible are divinely inspired and which ones are not (since most Protestants I know believe that the Apocrypha is not divinely inspired).
Not being much of a History aficionado, and not knowing much about the Apocrypha, I said that I wouldn't be able to answer him until I got the chance to ask you guys on here about it.
So, what do you say guys? What is the answer, and what should I tell him?
~Riella
So, I have a question now.
I'm a Calvinist, so of course my Bible doesn't contain the books of the Apocrypha. But my friend, who is Catholic, has a Bible that does. And he wants to know why I believe the parts in my Bible but not the parts in his Bible, why they were taken out of my Bible, what gave the right for the Protestants to take it out in the first place, and how we as humans are able to tell which books of the Bible are divinely inspired and which ones are not (since most Protestants I know believe that the Apocrypha is not divinely inspired).
It might not be that the Apocrypha is a bad thing, but lots of Christians don't think it has much of a place in the Bible, since some things in it might not be relevant. Anyways, when I took a class where we read the Apocrypha, there was this one historical inconsistency in Judith that could point to why the Apocrypha might not be as "trusted" as the Bible is:
[quote="Judith 1:7":14bo114o]And Nebuchadnezzar king of the Assyrians sent unto all that dwelt in Persia, and to all that dwelt westward, to those that dwelt in Cilicia and Damascus and Libanus and Antilibanus...
Nebuchadnezzar was the king of the Babylonians, not the Assyrians. I know there were more errors pointed out to me, but this was the only one that was on the top of my head.
"Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It's not."
- The Doctor.
My schedule has been erratic lately so I haven't been by. Please forgive any absences.
As I understand it, Catholic Bibles contain the Apocrypha because the early Church drew upon the Septuagint, which was a mass translation of the ancient writings into Greek during the 3rd Century before Christ. The idea was to put a copy in the world-famous Greek Library at Alexandria. The work was done by 72 Jewish scholars, all independently, locked in different rooms, yet they produced the same version!
These very, very early "Old" Testaments -- the New Testament hadn't been finished yet, remember -- were translated into Latin from the Septuagint.
St. Jerome didn't like this copy-of-a-copy-of-a-copy-of-et-cetera. He translated directly from the ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, etc and skipped the Greek. At first he was fiercely criticized, especially by St. Augustine. Eventually Jerome's translation prevailed.
Meanwhile over in Judaism, the canon of the TaNaKHh ("Torah, Ne'vim, Ketu'vim), or Hebrew Bible, was not standardized until some time after Christianity had been established.
Tanakh includes fewer books than the Septuagint. The books that were dropped are: Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach, Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah (which later became chapter 6 of Baruch in the Vulgate), additions to Daniel (The Prayer of Azarias, the Song of the Three Children, Sosanna and Bel and the Dragon), additions to Esther, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, 1 Esdras, Odes, including the Prayer of Manasseh, the Psalms of Solomon, and Psalm 151.
The books that had been in Septuagint but were dropped from Tanakh are called Apocrypha.
During the Renaissance some Christian scholars began to compare the oldest Hebrew and non-Greek versions of the Old Testament with the Greek. They decided the pre-Greek versions were more accurate and retranslated, basically revisiting Jerome's work but with more discovered material to work with.
The Reniassance also was the era in which Protestants broke away. They decided to keep as Christian canon only the Old Testament books that Judaism and its Bible, the Tanakh, accepted as canon. (Ithilwen, that's the answer to your friend's question. Well, one of his questions, anyway.)
Writings that have never been canonized fall into several categories.
As we mentioned, the books that had been in Septuagint but were dropped from Tanakh are called Apocrypha. Catholics still have the Apocrypha in their Bible in a section after Malachi and before Matthew. Protestants do not have an Apocrypha in their Bibles.
Writings that are considered "not up to the level of inspired Scripture but are good to read" are called Deuterocanonical. Some date from before Christ, and some date from after Christ.
Writings from more debatable origins are usually called Pseudepigraphic. This is a broad category that includes everything from supposed-first-drafts of canonized books, to Dead Sea Scroll fragments, to "Gospel of" So&so, to assorted letters supposedly written by all sorts of Biblical and extra-Biblical figures.
It's back! My humongous [technical term] study of What's behind "Left Behind" and random other stuff.
The Upper Room | Sponsor a child | Genealogy of Jesus | Same TOM of Toon Zone
Meanwhile over in Judaism, the canon of the TaNaKHh ("Torah, Ne'vim, Ketu'vim), or Hebrew Bible, was not standardized until some time after Christianity had been established.
Scholars discovered from their studies of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the transcribing of the Hebrew Scriptures (the Tanakh), the Torah, in particular, has been consistent and accurate from well before Christianity was established, maybe even since the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, when the Jews returned to Jerusalem. I once visited a Jewish synagogue where the official in charge of our group was keen to tell us of the procedures they take when an old copy of the Torah is to be replaced by a new copy. They have to ensure that nothing is changed from the old copy, ' not by a jot or a tittle').
It might not be that the Apocrypha is a bad thing, but lots of Christians don't think it has much of a place in the Bible, since some things in it might not be relevant. Anyways, when I took a class where we read the Apocrypha, there was this one historical inconsistency in Judith that could point to why the Apocrypha might not be as "trusted" as the Bible is:
[quote="Judith 1:7":foacve00]And Nebuchadnezzar king of the Assyrians sent unto all that dwelt in Persia, and to all that dwelt westward, to those that dwelt in Cilicia and Damascus and Libanus and Antilibanus...
Nebuchadnezzar was the king of the Babylonians, not the Assyrians. I know there were more errors pointed out to me, but this was the only one that was on the top of my head.
Since the Babylonians defeated the Assyrians at the great battle of Carchemish, shortly after the death of Josiah, King of Judah, technically Nebuchadnessar was the king of the Assyrians, as well as the Babylonians. It was Josiah's sons and grandsons who were affected by the fall of Jerusalem in 587 BC. Another of Josiah's descendants, Zerubbabel was the Persian satrap appointed to Jerusalem and he was also a direct ancestor of Jesus.
Whilst the Apocrypha are not considered canon books of the Bible (ie canon as distinct from cannon, a large size gun), it doesn't follow they aren't useful books to study. Whilst thumbing through the current church version of the Australian Prayer book, I noted there were several prayers taken from extracts from such Apocryphal books as Tobit or Esdras. Such prayers are also present in the original Anglican Book of Common Prayer.
The two books of Maccabees also have historic value, and shed light on the history of Judea between the time of the Seleucid successors of Alexander the Great, and Herod, who displaced the Maccabeans and whose reign ushered in the events of the Gospels.