Question received: Should the Bible be taken literally?

There is a lot of question in today's world as to how literally to follow the Bible teaching, or perhaps the Bible example.  This posting will give a summary of what the Bible is trying to say and the reader can decide for yourself.

We read all through the Old Testament about the coming Kingdom.  The greatest kingdom in the OT was that of David, and Jesus is described in the NT as "the son of David."  In a number of places, but notably in Joel 2, we read of the kingdom that is to come; and in that kingdom, "I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh."  So when we get to the NT, Jesus comes and says that He will build His church.  But He doesn't build it Himself; He leaves it to the apostles to do, and sends back the Holy Spirit to direct them.  Read Acts 2 where Peter, in delivering the very first gospel sermon, quotes Joel 2 and says that this outpouring of the Holy Spirit that they have just witnessed is what Joel was talking about. 

Following this amazing start to the "kingdom,"  we see the development of the church, people becoming Christians by repenting and being baptized, leaders being set up in each church (elders) and worship occurring each Sunday.  As mentioned in the last blog posting, detailed qualifications are given in 1Timothy and Titus for these elders who would lead each individual church. 

Now with this background, the question is: Considering the times and customs of those being different from today, should we not be changing our religious practices today to go with today's customs?  This a good question and truly gets to the crux of the matter.  Here is what I see:

When we study the Bible, we learn in 3 different ways:  1) Direct command--an example would be when Jesus met with His apostles and said regarding the Lord's Supper, "Do this in remembrance of Me."  He commanded them to take of the Communion in future days.   2) Example--we see example after example in the NT, particularly in Acts, of people being baptized; thus, we learn that is how God wanted people to become Christians.  Jesus left the earth and left the apostles to teach what was needed; and what they taught is recorded in the NT.  Another example is that we learn to worship on Sunday, not Saturday or Monday, by example from the early church.  3) Necessary inference--some things we can learn in the NT simply by inferring.  Perhaps an example of this could be applied to what is said right at the end of the Bible, where it says, "..I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life.."  While this is speaking directly of the book of Revelation, it can be inferred that God feels the same for the whole Bible. 

So when we look at how the Bible develops, how it starts with the OT to build to the coming of Jesus, how Jesus talks of the coming kingdom, how He leaves it to the apostles to carry on and  how they go about setting up the church, does it not seem reasonable that this Bible is our pattern, our only pattern to follow, to see how God wants the church to be organized, to see how one becomes a Christian, to see what constitutes worship, and to see how Christians are to act?  These things don't change over time. My conclusion is that the Bible is timeless, is not outdated, and can be followed precisely.  And a final note:  When men conclude otherwise, that the church must change with the times, we get denomination after denomination, after denomination, division, disagreement, distortion, religion that suits man...but ultimately not God, watered down Christianity that might be a lot of fun, but doesn't look at all like the church of the Bible. 

Thanks for reading.  Feel the love!