Theology 101
We’re going to go through J.I. Packers little overview of Christian theology and review our understandings of the historic, Protestant Christian faith.
While Packer will come from a Reformed perspective on some of these issues, most of us will be able to affirm the majority of these teachings.
Where your particular tradition may differ, feel free to share that with us.
Today we begin a few days studying revelation…how God reveals Himself to us through His word and through creation.
REVELATION
SCRIPTURE IS THE WORD OF GOD
The tablets were the work of God;
the writing was the writing of God,
engraved on the tablets.
EXODUS 32:16
Christianity is the true worship and service of the true God, humankind’s Creator and Redeemer. It is a religion that rests on revelation: nobody would know the truth about God, or be able to relate to him in a personal way, had not God first acted to make himself known. But God has so acted, and the sixty-six books of the Bible, thirty-nine written before Christ came and twenty-seven after, are together the record, interpretation, expression, and embodiment of his self-disclosure. God and godliness are the Bible’s uniting themes.
From one standpoint, the Scriptures (Scriptures means “writings”) are the faithful testimony of the godly to the God whom they loved and served; from another standpoint, through a unique exercise of divine overruling in their composition, they are God’s own testimony and teaching in human form. The church calls these writings the Word of God because their authorship and contents are both divine.
Decisive assurance that Scripture is from God and consists entirely of his wisdom and truth comes from Jesus Christ and his apostles, who taught in his name. Jesus, God incarnate, viewed his Bible (our Old Testament) as his heavenly Father’s written instruction, which he no less than others must obey (Matt. 4:4, 7, 10; 5:19-20; 19:4-6; 26:31, 52-54; Luke 4:16-21; 16:17; 18:31-33; 22:37; 24:25-27, 45-47; John 10:35), and which he had come to fulfill (Matt. 5:17-18; 26:24; John 5:46). Paul described the Old Testament as entirely “God-breathed”—that is, a product of God’s Spirit (“breath”) just as the cosmos is (Ps. 33:6; Gen. 1:2)—and written to teach Christianity (2 Tim. 3:15-17; Rom. 15:4; 1 Cor. 10:11). Peter affirms the divine origin of biblical teaching in 2 Peter 1:21 and 1 Peter 1:10-12, and so also by his manner of quoting does the writer to the Hebrews (Heb. 1:5-13; 3:7; 4:3; 10:5-7, 15-17; cf. Acts 4:25; 28:25-27).
Since the apostles’ teaching about Christ is itself revealed truth in God-taught words (1 Cor. 2:12-13), the church rightly regards authentic apostolic writings as completing the Scriptures. Already Peter refers to Paul’s letters as Scripture (2 Pet. 3:15-16), and Paul is apparently calling Luke’s gospel Scripture in 1 Timothy 5:18, where he quotes the words of Luke 10:7.
The idea of written directives from God himself as a basis for godly living goes back to God’s act of inscribing the Decalogue on stone tablets and then prompting Moses to write his laws and the history of his dealings with his people (Exod. 32:15-16; 34:1, 27-28; Num. 33:2; Deut. 31:9). Digesting and living by this material was always central to true devotion in Israel for both leaders and ordinary people (Josh. 1:7-8; 2 Kings 17:13; 22:8-13; 1 Chron. 22:12-13; Neh. 8; Ps. 119). The principle that all must be governed by the Scriptures, that is, by the Old and New Testaments taken together, is equally basic to Christianity.
What Scripture says, God says; for, in a manner comparable only to the deeper mystery of the Incarnation, the Bible is both fully human and fully divine. So all its manifold contents—histories, prophecies, poems, songs, wisdom writings, sermons, statistics, letters, and whatever else—should be received as from God, and all that Bible writers teach should be revered as God’s authoritative instruction. Christians should be grateful to God for the gift of his written Word, and conscientious in basing their faith and life entirely and exclusively upon it. Otherwise, we cannot ever honor or please him as he calls us to do.
If ever there was a time to be FIRST in a thread, it is in one proclaiming the Scriptures as the Word of God – His revelation to us.
Amen!
Already Peter refers to Paul’s letters as Scripture (2 Pet. 3:15-16), and Paul is apparently calling Luke’s gospel Scripture in 1 Timothy 5:18, where he quotes the words of Luke 10:7.
————————————————————–
I find these are important details to note, especially in discussing the New Testament’s role as Canon alongside the Old Testament. Glad to see them included.
Packer can get more information out with fewer words than anyone.
My hope is that folks read these and use them as benchmarks to see how their own understandings compare.
Those are very important details to note…it is also important to decide if one believes that God is able to communicate and preserve His word through the ages…
Day 1, good start!
NA,
I hope that Packers clarity will be contagious and we all come out with a clearer understanding of why we believe what we believe.
I don’t have Packer’s “Concise Theology”…but I assume this is only a small portion of the section for revelation? The Lord Jesus Christ is obviously the revelation of God to mankind, and creation reveals the glory of the Creator.
Maybe I’m jumping ahead of things. 🙂
I do praise God for the revelation He’s given us through the Scriptures. There are days I stand in the pulpit & the full gravity of what I am doing hits me: sharing the very inspired word of God with His people. It always (rightly so, I believe) causes me to tremble a bit – it is not something to be taken lightly.
The very privilege we have by having God’s own word is amazing to me. Every bit is inspired as the next, even if perhaps not as interesting to us. As I heard Adrian Rodgers say one time, “I’d rather be stuck on a desert island with 1 Corinthians than 1 Chronicles…” 🙂 But even so, the Chronicles show us (if nothing else) that God knows our names, and He will always be faithful to His word & promises. That is as glorious as a lesson as any found in the Psalms, or in James, etc.
To think that God has given us His word!
He could have set us here with nothing but the revelation of creation…and it would have been enough. He could have made us without ever revealing Himself *at all*, and He still would be worthy of glory, by virtue of the fact that He is God. Yet He went so much farther…He gave us His word, that we would know Him.
What a glorious God we serve!
Tim,
You may be jumping ahead…to tomorrows article. 🙂
Today we note that we believe the Scriptures are God breathed and internally consistent…tomorrow we will look at general revelation in creation.
Michael says:
“NA,
I hope that Packers clarity will be contagious and we all come out with a clearer understanding of why we believe what we believe.”
Thanks Michael, I agree. It is a good beginning, I am looking foreword to a deeper understanding. It is difficult to choose who to read, on the net. There are many who cover this, never sure who to trust. Thanks for making this happen.
Not Alone,
I believe that the Bible is the inspired, God breathed, word of God.
I am ‘fundamentalist” in my belief that every word is true and every promise can be trusted.
I believe God not only has given His word, but that He has preserved it through the ages in exactly the form He desires.
I love the Bible and I make no apology for that.
If you do have any questions as we go through, do ask…I’m not afraid of questions, nor are any of us here who teach this word.
I will ask questions Michael, thanks. This mornings was very clear.
I feel the same about His word. I also love the Bible and because of the way he made me, I can only believe all of it or none of it. I find all of this interesting and helpful for many reasons, but mostly so that I can explain it to others when the need arises, especially my children.
Totally off topic and unrelated but very interesting to me, so don’t be discourages, I love to learn about Theology. I have crazy questions that I will save until the end of this series or most likely not at all, but they really don’t have anything to do with the Gospel or anything as important. You know, it’s the X file type stuff, references to dragons, satyrs, giants, the OT stuff. I know I will have to probably wait until I leave this earthly body to receive the answers to. But maybe a good thread sometime….I’d rather hear it from here then from the Coast to Coast type shows.
These series are always great. I’m glad we are back to boot camp.
I’m a bit surprised this thread hasn’t gotten more traction today (especially given the argument on the ‘Calvinist’ thread)…perhaps everyone is offline for various reasons.
Perhaps we can discuss why we believe that the word of God IS the word of God?
From my perspective, this is answered primarily as Packer does above: the testimony of Jesus Christ. Without a shadow of a doubt, we know Scripture is God-breathed & authoritative because Jesus affirms is as such…and we know Jesus is credible because He is risen from the dead (which is the declaration of His deity).
Secondarily, we can affirm Scripture is divinely inspired due to prophetic fulfillment. There is no book in history that can even come close to the Bible’s prophetic accuracy. Again, to look at Jesus alone, He fulfills 300+ prophecies about His genealogy, birth, ministry, death, resurrection, etc. to a “T”…which outside of supernatural fulfillment, is statistically an impossibility.
Thirdly, we can affirm Scripture is divinely inspired due to the testimony of those who read it. I’m not referring to the so-called “burning in the bosom” by Mormons, but rather the effect of words that are living & powerful & sharper than any 2-edged sword. People are cut to the heart by the word of God for good reason: it is, in fact, the word of God.
What are some other reasons?
The internal consistency…despite being written by many different men over hundreds of years…it’s an amazing book.
Too good not to share somewhere today:
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/rayortlund/2010/04/22/all-that-matters-is-who-god-is/
Where your particular tradition may differ, feel free to share that with us.<<<
I agree with all of this except for the number of Old Testament books. We have a few more, such as the Maccabees, etc. (I'm not exactly disagreeing, just pointing out a difference.)
I especially like this:
What Scripture says, God says; for, in a manner comparable only to the deeper mystery of the Incarnation, the Bible is both fully human and fully divine.
Very Orthodox. 🙂
Tim, right. Jesus spoke of Adam and Eve, Noah, Jonah, etc. That’s all the proof I need that the miracles of the OT really happened.
BrianD, too good not to share? amen
“… I am a poor unworthy creature and have nothing at all to move God to help me. Yet be of good comfort, for the Lord says again, My name is Gracious. I do not show mercy because you are good, but because I am good.” its all because of who He is… amen, amen, amen – oh, thank You, Lord
Xenia,
Packer and I are Orthodox friendly… 🙂
Michael, “The internal consistency…despite being written by many different men over hundreds of years…it’s an amazing book.”
how could any author (or anyone else who has ‘tried’ to write even one book) remain an unbeliever by this very fact alone?
Em,
That’s why the kind of “proof” for the canon that Believe wants is utterly irrelevant to me.
The church received the Word, they didn’t “choose” it.
Em, now that‘s “preaching the gospel to yourself”
@13 re: internal consistency…
Thanks for bringing that one up. Absolutely HUGE. To know that the message of the Bible is absolutely consistent from “In the beginning” to “the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all, amen” is astounding. We can barely get a few witnesses to agree in any civil court…yet the witness of the Bible, spanning thousands of years & dozens of writers is completely consistent.
For clarity: thousands of years of history; if we assume Moses wrote Genesis, then we have about 1500 years from Moses to Jesus (if the Bible history dates I’ve seen are correct).
Tim,
Absolutely correct about the time frame…thank you!
Just dropping in and see there is a cozy agreement here on what Michael has printed from Packer. Now let me ask the question, what is Packer’s and those who have posted position on the errantcy of scripture?
Is scripture word for word true?
Are there any errors in translation, Hebrew to Greek, English, and between the common versions.
Are there any errors or additions applied via the scribes, especially in the NT writings.
Did any of the authors make errors in their recollection of the events they recorded? Example; Matthew’s genealogy is incorrect when compared to OT writings and the numbers do not add up to the 14, 14, 14.
Should an interpretation into today’s culture be literal or are there cultural ideas which do not transfer? Example, women teaching men.
Are there wooden literal things or should historic and cultural sayings be considered? Examples, “This is my body…” and “the whole household (therefore implied babies)…”
Before you blow me away I too hold to everything Packer and you all have said, but these things I have mentioned, and more, are real stumbling blocks for both those who believe and those who don’t.
Some answers?
Bob,
Packer wrote much of, and affirmed the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy.
http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/icbi.html
I’m with Packer… 🙂
Michael:
Just read your post and I agree with it 100% but it still leaves my questions open.
Such as Matthews genealogy, the interpretation of women teaching, baptisms, different numbers of events recollected, doctrines and accounts based on possible scribal additional (Mark 16… the woman caught in adultery and more). Even the deity (Son of God) of Jesus is often interpreted differently using the agreed upon statement.
A person’s or group’s approach to these things can be totally different but yet fully agree with Packer’s “Chicago Statement.”
I guess it is the application of scripture which really counts.
“We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.”
True or False…Mark 16:9-20 was written by Mark.
Don’t know…it’s a known textual variant.
While I give credit to Moses for Genesis, I think a strong conservative case is made by means of the ‘generations’ (toledoth) that it was being written down over the centuries by the patriarchs and Moses is really the God inspired editor – with a few additions of his own (as God led) such as when he explains a place by a different name, or sometimes says ‘is still there to the present day’
So the written over thousands (plural) of years is perfectly accurate in my opinion.
Whether Mark personally wrote the ending does not affect inerrancy or canonicity. Moses certainly did not write the last verses of Deuteronomy which describe his death.
I like Metzger’s take – a true textual scholar that should at least be listened to with great seriousness before rejecting.
Here is the money quote (you can find some of what he wrote on the subject at this website http://www.bible-researcher.com/endmark.html – which I found by a quick google so I don’t support or deny all its contents:
“There seems to be good reason, therefore, to conclude that, though external and internal evidence is conclusive against the authenticity of the last twelve verses as coming from the same pen as the rest of the Gospel, the passage ought to be accepted as part of the canonical text of Mark.”
Good stuff.
It’s been a while since I’ve cracked open “Concise Theology”, so if I remember correctly, Packer doesn’t dedicate more than 4-5 pages on each area.
When I took my theology course, I couldn’t flesh out God’s immutability in under 8 pages. Maybe in another 40 years or so…..
AV…I agree regarding Mark 16:9-20.
It is nearly certain (won’t give all the arguments) that 9-20 were not written by Mark, but added later, drawing from the other Gospels to finish the original text.
The events are consistent (in general) with the other Gospel accounts.
All it proves is that Mark didn’t write verses 9-20…it doesn’t necessarily prove errancy…but it does give the opportunity for Skeptics (especially in Academia) to ambush the vast majority of believers.
The addition doesn’t add anything new or contradict anything (that isn’t already perceived as contradictory) in Scripture.
What was the criteria for being included in Canon at the various Councils?
Why was the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Hebrews left out of Canon?
Why do the Eastern Orthodox include Maccabees and the rest of Christianity doesn’t? Does Maccabees add or contradict anything in Protestant Canon?
Why is the Book of Enoch left out of Protestant Canon…yet included in Ethiopian Orthodox Church Canon?
When the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy states:
“We affirm that God’ s revelation in the Holy Scriptures was progressive.”
Does that mean actual final documenting of the Scripture…or does it include the process of Canonization? Or Both?
They were not written by apostles, they had historical errors and they were not received by the early church.
Believe mentions the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
Here is a link to what was signed, and some of the big names who signed it. I assume Michael is cool with the link since Packer is one of the signatories 😉
I have always liked what they came up with, and an understanding of what is taught in this document will go a long way in overcoming our ‘language barrier’ when discussing words like inerrancy, inspiration and the like with others.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html
I thought I did that already…Packer wrote most of it along with Boice…
To answer Believe’s question about the “extra” books in the Old Testament, here is an explanatory paragraph from St. Tikhon’s Seminary’s web site:
—
The Deutero-canonical books appeared as part of Holy Scripture with the translation of the Hebrew Scripture into Greek by Alexandrian Jews who had been gathered together for that purpose in Egypt just prior to the New Testament times. Over the centuries, however, these books have been disputed by many; many hold them to have little or no value as Scripture. However, both the Orthodox and Roman Catholics accept them as part of the Biblical Canon, whereas, since the Reformation, most Protestants have rejected them as being spurious. Although the Orthodox Church accepts these books as being canonical, and treasures them and uses them liturgically, she does not use them as primary sources in the definition of her dogmas.
To answer Believe’s question about the criteria for canonization:
1. Apostolic origin. The text (letter, Gospel) was written by an Apostle or a close associate of an Apostle, such as St. Luke.
2. Used everywhere, accepted by most Christians, not only read to the congregation but maybe even used liturgically.
3. No contradictions, either with each other or with what was commonly believed to be Apostolic teaching.
So pretty much believed by every one, everywhere, since the beginning.
‘So pretty much believed by every one, everywhere, since the beginning.’
Also known as catholicity, right?
It is the belief that it was the Holy Spirit who inspired Scripture (which I believe)…though I am still testing my belief that Scripture necessarily has to be completely inerrant…as strictly defined by the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy…to be Salvational…or even “grave consequences”…
Even the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy recognizes that inerrancy is not a Salvific issue…
“We deny that such confession is necessary for salvation. However, we further deny that inerrancy can be rejected without grave consequences both to the individual and to the Church.”
What does that statement mean? How do you quantify “grave consequences”…what is the Scriptural support for that conclusion?
Did the Holy Spirit inspire Canonicity?
If so, then who’s Canon is the correct Canon?
Martin Luther wanted to remove four books from Protestant Canon…he decided not to…had he followed through…and the Lutherans were to have their own Canon…would that have been considered inspired by the Holy Spirit?
Is becoming Canon for a recognized Church the yardstick by which we measure the belief that the Holy Spirit inspired Canon? (if such a belief exists)…
For example…if CC decided to remove the book of James from Canon…and to add Maccabees…would that be considered a Holy Spirit inspired Canon?
If the Scriptures are not inerrant in the original autographs then they are not trustworthy.
That’s grave.
Michael, my bad. I just skimmed the comments and missed that you did indeed post the link.
I appreciate the collection of scholars that were part of this…I think it speaks to what has been tried to be expressed lately here – about the brotherhood in Christ, despite some of the ‘inside baseball’ differences we may share on certain doctrinal points.
If Scripture is the inspiration of the Holy Spirit…and Canon…determined by numerous Councils of the Church “consensus” is the work of the Holy Spirit…then how do you explain the Reformation?
There was a divergence during the Reformation. All of the sudden there is a Council of Trent…which follows the same processes as the previous Councils…only without “consensus”…
Who has the authority of God and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit after this divergence?
The Protestants, the Eastern Orthodox or the RCC?
It is important to note that inerrancy and infallibility flow from inspiration.
This is what I emphasize when I teach on the topic, and this is what the Chicago Statement clearly proclaims.
AV,
I think it’s a wonderful document and it is affirmed across denomination lines.
I think it can be foundational for unity if we allow it.
The canon was recognized early and affirmed often.
It is closed, so any alteration would be outside of orthodoxy.
“If the Scriptures are not inerrant in the original autographs then they are not trustworthy.
That’s grave.”
How so? Salvation seems to be the only grave issue to me. What do you specifically define as grave? What is more important than Salvation?
You misunderstand the document.
The statement means that one does not need to hold to inerrancy to be saved.
However, without inerrancy, how do you know how to be saved?
“The canon was recognized early and affirmed often.
It is closed, so any alteration would be outside of orthodoxy.”
So who is outside of Orthodoxy? The Protestants, the RCC, the Eastern Orthodox, the Ethiopian Orthodox?
If salvation is the only grave issue, then almost all of this blog is a waste of time. Why discuss all the damage done to believers because of unBiblical actions. Why talk about standards for leadership and refer to 1 Tim 3. As long as someone is saved, so be it. Why wrestle with issues like the ordination of homosexual bishops (which goes straight to the inerrancy issue)
I’m serious. This to me has always been a problem in some churches that give an evangelistic message each week and little more.
Obviously, nothing is MORE important than salvation. But Christians need to grow in the Lord and learn how to live for the Lord in all aspects of their lives – and the Bible instructs them in just that way.
So if someone challenges the authority of ANY passage, it opens the door to challenges for all of them, especially the ones that might point to their sins or their God-given responsibilities.
As a Protestant we would see recognition of those books as canon unorthodox, while they would see us as the same for rejecting them.
AV,
Amen…
Since people are choosing to discuss inerrantcy of scripture, the various canons and the idea the only inerrant scriptures are those no one has (original autographs) then can we really trust the scriptures we hold in our hands?
Quit flogging each other over the technical and spend time worrying about what the scriptures say and why God had men record and then preserve those recordings for us to read. Yes even in their less than “original” state.
It ain’t as clean a subject as we’d like is it!
My take is the weaknesses and even the recognition of stuff like Mark 16, the genealogies, and various other “technical” errors is what makes the scriptures Holy and gives them their strength. They in all God’s glory, record a bunch of un-perfect/not so inspired people who encounter and record those encounters with a Holy God.
AV:
“So if someone challenges the authority of ANY passage, ”
Authority and knowing the issues of the canon are two different things. I find strength knowing that Mark probably didn’t write parts of chapter 16, but that does not dilute my faith in those passages being recorded on purpose by God for me to read and learn from.
But for me to deny the truth of who possible wrote those passages is just plain ignorance and leads to error, possible both personal and the wider church.
Now can I challenge your Interpretation of any passage or is that going against authority?
I have no idea what you are going on about Bob, especially since I am on record in this very thread as saying that Mark did not write most of Ch. 16.
Your last statement/question is silly. If you care to, Google ‘outdated Bible passages’ or something similar and you can read for hours what was my obvious point about the denial of authority of Scripture found in our world today.
“1. Apostolic origin. The text (letter, Gospel) was written by an Apostle or a close associate of an Apostle, such as St. Luke.”
So who wrote “Hebrews?”
What happened to the book of Enoch who is quoted in Jude 14,15?
This is a tough subject which subsequent generations of church leaders have struggled with, as this thread has made obvious. There is even evidence that much of the NT was originally written in Hebrew or possibly Aramaic and translated into Greek. Would this then be the ordinal autographs?
My answer? The good old scriptures we have is what God wanted to put in my/our hands and they are precious.
AV:
What I am going on about is we get hung up on the process of the canon and scream and yell at each other about it. We set rules about what constitutes authority, standards, and such but then contend whose are correct.
I’m at peace with all the perceived flaws with scripture and just wish people would read it for themselves rather than have someone else interpret it for them and then go about their business. I witness every day with people who think the Bible is just a dusty old out of date flawed book. When I read with them what it says many are amazed it doesn’t say what they heard the TV preacher or even sometimes their pastor/reverend said it said.
A good friend of our family got saved by just listening to bible audio tapes while driving to work. She was amazed about the stuff it said that she never heard at church before.
Bob…that’s a big AMEN.
You can apply that to the Calvinist vs. Arminian debates. They’re a total distraction and a huge waste of time.
I can use the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy…and rip Calvinism to shreds from a Critical perspective.
Theology is NOT the Science of God. If you make it the Science of God…you are bound by Science…and the Bible is illogical.
You are one impressive scholar…you can use a document written by Calvinists to “rip it to shreds”.
You can do so with no training in theology or any demonstrated knowledge of either Scripture or doctrine.
You have one post left to “rip Calvinism to shreds” and then you will be leaving the blog.
“The statement means that one does not need to hold to inerrancy to be saved.
However, without inerrancy, how do you know how to be saved?”
I thought we were Elected? I thought it was Predestined? God is God…He is Sovereign and can do whatever He wants. He does the drawing..etc etc.
We don’t need to know how to be saved to be saved if you buy into your Calvinist argument.
Without inerrancy and a trustworthy canon there is no Calvinism or any other system of theology, for there is no objective truth.
You have one post left.
So who wrote “Hebrews?”<<<
Hebrews is traditionally believed to have been written by St. Paul. Since I am a believer in Tradition, I am satisfied with this answer.
Michael…the phrase ‘why do I even try’ is running through my head, how about yours?
God bless you brother. I look forward to the daily Packer theology lessons, and I am sure I will be reminded of some important points and pick up some new nuggets along the way,
Your beef isn’t with Calvinism, it’s obviously with me and anyone else who would claim to have authority or expertise where you don’t.
Here, it’s with me.
That’s fine.
I allowed you to tell your story to a broader audience and gain exposure beyond the blog.
I’m done now.
AV,
For me..the more “advanced” stuff I read the more I need to touch base with the very basics to stay grounded.
I think it will be fun and edifying.
Michael…my beef isn’t with you…it IS with Calvinism…or any other System that puts God in a tight “box”…and claims Science in connection with God. (Though I’ll probably end up constructing my own Theological System in the process…like you’ve stated before…we’re all Theologians…)
BUT, I’ve made a lot of lofty Propositions in this thread. Bit off a lot. Time to put up or shut up….and that will take time.
I’ll go to work on an Argumentative Essay…this will force me to learn more about Theology and will test the Premises that I’ve laid out on this thread.
I’ll ask and answer my own questions…and then submit the Essay or Essays to you for review on the PP…assuming they hold any water and are even worth considering.
Rather than continuing to draw you out and wasting your time…I’ll construct the essays and “argue” with myself (drawing from credible sources…though “credible” is subjective).
You’re right in this sense…while I can have opinions…I’ll never be taken seriously until I do something that is judged “worth” being taken seriously by a “group”…which isn’t very Spiritual if you think about it…but it is the dynamic (works are judged as being “of the Holy Spirit” if they are widely accepted and “consensus” within the Church (i.e. a Council) or a denomination…is reached…another Essay).
AV’s post is such a good subject for a separate Argumentative Essay. I find myself believing the essence of what he’s articulating in this post…if one really believes the Bible as inerrant and Sola Scriptura:
“If salvation is the only grave issue, then almost all of this blog is a waste of time. Why discuss all the damage done to believers because of unBiblical actions. Why talk about standards for leadership and refer to 1 Tim 3. As long as someone is saved, so be it. Why wrestle with issues like the ordination of homosexual bishops (which goes straight to the inerrancy issue)
I’m serious. This to me has always been a problem in some churches that give an evangelistic message each week and little more.
Obviously, nothing is MORE important than salvation. But Christians need to grow in the Lord and learn how to live for the Lord in all aspects of their lives – and the Bible instructs them in just that way.
So if someone challenges the authority of ANY passage, it opens the door to challenges for all of them, especially the ones that might point to their sins or their God-given responsibilities.”
I would add to his post that the Church (CC for example) “Challenges” the authority of Scripture when it ignores Matthew 18, 1 Timothy 3 and 1 Timothy 5 …in word and in deed. Without a formal Denominational Structure and/or “Distinctives” with teeth that enforce these Scriptures…you open Pandora’s Box and lose your authority to teach the Bible as Inerrant and Sola Scriptura…you are reduced to a very Liberal view of Scripture by “saying” you believe one thing…”the Bible is the inerrant Word of God”…while practicing another …”we don’t really believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God..because we would rather ‘protect Chuck’s assets’ than be a formal denomination with teeth to enforce clear accountability standards for pastors articulated in Scripture”…or something to that effect.
That will be an interesting Argumentative Essay as well.
Michael…I really do like you and love you…and appreciate you. I know it doesn’t “seem” that way when I’m wrestling (and i can’t “part way” wrestle…and, I didn’t think I’d be able to pull it off in this format without it being too messy)…but, I do…that is my heart…and I like and love all the other PPeeps.
Don’t let me back on, though, until I follow through and produce some thorough Argumentative Essays. I am drawn here…but I really need to “shut up” and do this.
Without the scriptures, all that’s left is conscience and creation to find our way to God. They are God’s gift to us not for morality so much as the revelation of Christ, what God demands to us, and they way to salvation and restoration.
There may be many “takes” on the interpretation thru the centuries, maybe some slants in translations bot correct and incorrect,; our understanding may still be growing, but the original autographs written in he hand of the man God inspired must be the words of God. Otherwise, as was said, why even have this blog? How do we know We are even sinners or that Christ alone can save us? It is a scary think to even entertain the notion the scriptures are not the inspired word of God. Sure there are questions, but as was said before, Jesus existence is a matter of historical record. He referred to the OT scriptures as true, I then will do the same, and trust at the very least, that his interpretation and application of scriptures are true and accurate and that he was a true and accurate representation of God. Imhave to or I would go nuts
AV…thanks for sharing the link to Bible Researcher…I stumbled upon Benjamin Jowett…and have never really read or studied Liberal Theologians…always Fundies and Conservatives…or CC guys…which probably explains why I think I’m going crazy having these discussions. Others do have very similar questions and possible explanations for what I’m wrestling with.
Just read some Jowett and A.P. Stanley…Thank God…I’m not going nuts!
“to study the Bible, not for the sake of making or defending systems out of it, but for the sake of discovering what it actually contains.”
Michael..you were right all along…I was arguing the other side…just not reading the “other side” and knowing it exists in a form that makes more sense to me…I’ve only been exposed to (on a deeper than surface level)…CC and Calvinism…and it’s been driving me nuts trying to resolve things in my mind.
This is the first thing I’ve read that makes some “sense” to me in a very long time:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/jowett1.html
I’ll be reading a lot more Benjamin Jowett and A.P. Stanley.
Thank you AV and Michael…that is sincere, not sycophantic…I “get it”…but, keep me off until I follow through…and am able to come back with something of value to offer.
Ahhh…peace.
This sums up what I’ve been going through (I have a philosophical mind…and I can’t turn the questions off):
“The suspicion of Deism, or perhaps of Atheism, awaits inquiry. By such fears a good man refuses to be influenced; a philosophical mind is apt to cast them aside with too much bitterness. It is better to close the book than to read it under conditions of thought which are imposed from without. Whether those conditions of thought are the traditions of the Church, or the opinions of the religious world—Catholic or Protestant — makes no difference. They are inconsistent with the freedom of the truth and the moral character of the Gospel. It becomes necessary, therefore, to examine briefly some of these prior questions which lie in the way of a reasonable criticism.”
B. Jowett
Believe…not sure if you will see this. I’ve been praying and waiting to say something, and haven’t really had something clear to add to this discussion until today. I was thinking through the dialogues of the last few weeks and I thought if I were in your shoes I might feel like I just couldn’t win….if I talked about my dad I was told I needed to get beyond that, and when I discussed other things I was told I was off as well.
I may be really off, but I was wondering if you might be in a place for the first time of exploring your faith without ties to CC and to your dad and all that has been wrapped up in your faith. You’ve made strides, it seems, in not focusing on your situation but trying to look beyond, and as you’ve done that more questions arise.
My pastor often says that one of things about our faith is that God pulls back. When we pull on our end of the rope there is an answer. There is the Spirit within us and the testimony of believers and the Word that stir in us…when we question we are drawn different ways.
The fact is there are believers who hold a more liberal view of Scripture than myself or Michael or others here. There are others who have struggled with the questions you have struggled with (are struggling with) and have landed in different places. I think the frustration over the last week or so has been that it felt as though you were attacking rather than just trying to work things through…and that creates a defensive response.
I know I’m being long, and I’m not really going to be around to respond after this. I just wanted to say that your questions shouldn’t (and I don’t think they do) offend or frighten any of the ministers here. I think that there is an impatience when you speak in a way that comes across arrogantly (may not be meant that way)…like saying you could rip Calvinism to shreds.
God is big enough to shoulder our questioning…but we need to be ready for Him to pull back on the rope. Read with an open heart. I’ve not read a lot of this man, but have heard that Ravi Zaccharius is well versed in the philosophical approach and comes down more conservatively…he might be worth your time.
Anyway…I’ve been quiet because anything I had to add felt like a distraction. I just wanted to let you know that I’m praying. Know that your questions are not new, and they might be taken wrongly sometimes….but know as well that we are aware that God has been working in you in significant ways. There is new freedom it seems in you right now, freedom to question some things, freedom to think. Don’t use that freedom to test those who could be your greatest assets…have patience for them even as you ask them to have patience with you.
Blessings on you.
Hi; I’m just chiming in about Mark 16:9-20. Metzger’s presentation — which is parroted by most modern-day commentators about the passage — and the footnotes in most Bibles regarding this passage are not well-balanced. It is unacceptable to focus on two manuscripts from the 300’s without mentioning the quirks they have at the end of Mark (unique blank space in B, a cancel-sheet in Aleph) and without emphasizing the much older patristic evidence (Justin, Epistula Apostolorum, Tatian, and Irenaeus) that favors the inclusion of Mark 16:9-20. It is also misleading to treat Jerome’s testimony as if Jerome was not simply paraphrasing Eusebius for the sake of convenience. I can’t supply much more detail in a comments-post, but I have made some materials on this subject available online, offering a defense of the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20; you are welcome to consult them.
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.
James, Time precludes me from reading all of your research now, though I would like to read it when I have more time, and I certainly am not asking for a repeat of it all here in a thread.
But in a few words if possible, do you object to the possibillity of God using another man besides Mark for these concluding verses?
Metzger argues they should be included in the canon, unlike most commentaries that I read. A couple of the exegetical works I own, though memory fails which ones, do not even exegete the passage – taking the stance of ‘why bother if it isn’t Scripture’
A 2nd question, since I haven’t read your material yet, I just ask ‘yes or no,’ do you discuss the other alternate endings in your work? Counting the ‘no ending’ there are four options by my count with various degrees of support.
Look forward to reading it.