Subscription Lists

The phrase is actually an Islamic phrase. It refers to Jews and Christians (and a group of people known as Sabians). "The Book" in view, then, would be the Bible. For Jews, it would refer to our Old Testament and for Christians it would be the whole Book. Christians embraced the term in later days declaring, "Yes, indeed, we are people of the Book."

Of course, modern Christians are often in disagreement on this point. Modern Christians (self-professed) might consider themselves "religious, but without all that Bible nonsense." They would think it's a good book and all that, but let's not get carried away. I can write about "Christians" and "biblical Christians" and no one really questions the distinction because there are self-professed Christians who are "people of the Book" and self-professed Christians who are not. Settled in the early days of Christendom, one of the hottest (in terms of emotion as well as popularity) contentions these days is the reliability of the Christian Bible.

It's not just Christians who have this disagreement. Modern Jews are largely not "people of the Book." Indeed, many modern Jews are Jewish in heritage only. Their Bible disagrees with them as it does with modern Christians who are not biblical Christians.

The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever. (Isaiah 40:8)

The disagreement among self-professing Christians centers around just a couple of issues, I think. The first is common to most -- Jew and Christian. "I'm the decider of what is true and right." Like a kid who tells an adult, "You're not the boss of me!", we aren't really happy about some book written thousands of years ago telling us what is and is not true, what is and is not right. It's common to hear complaints like, "What did they know about modern issues like gender or loving relationships between two people of the same sex?" It carries over to other issues, too, of course, but you understand. Life was different then. Why would we expect the Bible to have any reasonable or useful input now? The second very common problem is that of translation and interpretation. On one hand this is a valid concern. We have certainly seen (continue to see) our share of bad translations and even interpretations. (The New World Translation springs to mind for bad translation and anything interpreted à la Joel Olsteen is a suspect interpretation -- two quick examples.)

I think everything else breaks down under those two complaints. "The Bible was written by men and shouldn't be the final word on all things Christian." That's still under the first category. "The Bible isn't a book of rules." Still that first category. "There are so many differences of interpretation for so many things in the Bible that we can't know for sure." Second category. You get the idea.

I also think that the complaints break down into one position: God is not reliable. You can see this under both categories. For the first category, He is not reliable to tell us what to do in His own Word, and in the second He is not reliable to keep His own Word through the ages. He is not reliable enough to insure that His own people know what His Word says. He is not Omniscient because He didn't plan for the future. He wasn't able to produce a comprehensive, authoritative, reliable manual for "the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints." (Jude 1:3) The flip side of that same coin is to lay it at our feet. We can't be trusted to properly interpret His Word. We can't really know what He intended. We are not reliable enough to say with certainty what was meant. Same thing, different approach.

It's all nonsense, you see. The distinction between "Christian" and "biblical Christian" looks a lot like "not Christian" and "Christian" when considered through the lens of "Is God reliable?" The non-biblical Christian would have to argue, "No, He's not ... but I'm a believer." Not a reasonable position. The best "anti-biblical Christian" arguments end up with only a couple of possibilities. Either God is not God -- not correct or good or right or reliable -- or the Holy Spirit has failed to accomplish what Jesus said He would (John 14:26). It's fairly simple. The Christian who confirms that the Bible is notreliable, inerrant, authoritative -- God's Word -- denies at the core the character and capability of God the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. If Christians are not actually people of the Book, they are not likely Christians

"Voice of Inspiration" from Andy Castro

I See Dead People (Updated Version)