{"id":7025506,"date":"2026-08-03T18:52:26","date_gmt":"2026-08-03T18:52:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/peraltafinancing.com\/uncategorized\/the-problematic-bible-do-we-need-a-third-testament\/"},"modified":"2026-08-03T18:52:26","modified_gmt":"2026-08-03T18:52:26","slug":"the-problematic-bible-do-we-need-a-third-testament","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=7025506","title":{"rendered":"The Problematic Bible: Do We Need a Third Testament?"},"content":{"rendered":"


\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

The question of biblical authority is not new, but rarely gets asked as directly as Yvette Flunder, an activist and womanist pastor affiliated with the United Church of Christ.\u00a0In April 2026, she made waves with the following statement<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

This is a very dangerous thing that I\u2019m about to say now, but since I \u2013 a bit dangerous, I\u2019m of the opinion that we need a third testament because the Bible has become problematic \u2026 I am completely frustrated with the ways in which the text speaks to the kind of vitriolic God \u2026 And people will say, \u201cWell it\u2019s in the book.\u201d And I said, \u201cThen we need to pour [sic]<\/em> that page out.\u201d And they say, \u201cYou can\u2019t do it, it\u2019s the Word of God.\u201d I said, \u201cNo, it\u2019s words about God. Come on now. But is it the Word of God? No. It is not the Word of God.\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The claim that we \u201cneed a third testament\u201d because the Bible has become \u201cproblematic\u201d reveals far more about the speaker than it does about Scripture. There are at least four major issues with her proposal.\u00a0<\/p>\n

First, it assumes that truth must conform to cultural standards. But if divine revelation is from God, then it sits in judgment over us\u2014we do not have the authority to revise it whenever it judges us unfavorably (cf. John 12:48). Calling the Bible \u201cproblematic\u201d is simply another way of saying, \u201cIt won\u2019t let me do what I want.\u201d This is not a theological argument; it is a complaint.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Second, Flunder misunderstands the nature of revelation. Scripture presents itself as complete and sufficient. The faith was \u201conce for all delivered to the saints\u201d (Jude 3)\u2014in other words, a complete collection, not an evolving conversation. The \u201cthird testament\u201d Flunder proposes would not be any continuation of previously revealed truth. Her theology makes it clear that her vision is nothing short of a contradiction of what God has already said. It is also substituting what she wants for what God has decreed.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Third, this repeats one of history\u2019s oldest patterns. Whenever human beings have found God\u2019s Word inconvenient, they have attempted to supplement, revise, or discard it in favor of something more accommodating. But replacing revelation is not reform; it is rebellion (cf. Galatians 1:6\u20139).<\/p>\n

Finally, Flunder\u2019s statements expose a deeper issue: authority. Who decides what is acceptable and what is \u201cproblematic\u201d? If the standard is human preference, then any supplement to the Bible will simply mirror the spirit of the age. Indeed, it would be an error to speak of it in singular terms, because if each person decides what constitutes a problem, then there is no third testament, but rather a nearly endless collection of supplements as varied as the preferences of the people proposing them.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

Human beings have always wanted to exercise some degree of personal autonomy free from God\u2019s will. The real issue is not that the Bible has become problematic. It is that human beings have found that God\u2019s desires often collide with our own. And when they do, people feel free to disparage Scripture, consider themselves enlightened, and sit in judgment over God\u2019s Word when it should be the other way around.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n