EMAIL THIS PAGE
PRINT
RSS
Politicians, lawyers and pastors alike all swear on the Bible. They all raise their right hand, while placing the left on the Bible, and say, "I solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God." Can all these people really mean it? How about Enron's CEO and O.J. Simpson, did they mean it? To be honest, the whole idea of swearing upon the Bible rubs me the wrong way. After all, Jesus himself says right in the Bible to swear by nothing in heaven or on earth. What is the deal with this book we call the Bible that makes us want to swear upon it? What is it that makes it so sacred? Why do we claim the Bible is inspired? Is inspiration the only factor that determines whether or not a book should be in the Bible? I have long wrestled with the inspiration and inerrancy issue, as well as the way that we should view the Bible today. Through studying the formation of the Bible, I eventually came to grips with a few things that changed my perspective forever. For starters, not all churches agree about which books should be in the Bible, and which ones should not. The Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Ethiopic, and Syrian churches all have different books in their Bible. Second of all, one council did not choose what would be in the New Testament. The New Testament was chosen through a gradual agreement of the churches around the civilized world of the time over a period of 300-400 years. When historians who study the writings of the early church fathers evaluate the canonization process, they generally draw the conclusion that a particular book of the New Testament was chosen on the basis of four fundamental factors:
Inspiration is not a determining factor in whether or not a biblical book was considered canonical. Essentially, anyone in the early church who was lead by the Holy Spirit was considered inspired. Likewise, any writing that resulted from spiritual contemplation could be considered inspired. Epitaphs, commentaries, and what would become biblical books, were all called inspired. Inspiration was a given when a book was evaluated for canonicity. This brings me to ask a question many have asked: Does belief in the Bible equal belief in Christianity? No, because Christianity had already spread around the civilized world long before the entire Bible was canonized. Christianity equals belief in Christ. As important as the Bible is, it is secondary to belief in Christ. This raises a few more questions: If the canonizing of the Bible was so practical, shouldn’t the way we view the Bible be practical as well? Can anyone be inspired? If it is the Holy Spirit that inspires us, can you and I see the Infinite God in everything like the early followers of Jesus did? Could our lack of belief in what God has instilled in us be holding us back? |
Comments
A Few Notes:
I originally posted this in the Q & A section, in response to a question John the Deist asked there.
As I mentioned, the Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Ethiopic, and Syrian churches all have different books in their Bible. I am personally so interested in this I had an article and chart commissioned for the Nov-Dec 2008 Issue of Bible Study Magazine about it (if you are interested, check it out).
I further explain the process of how a book became canonical when evaluating the canonicity of the Gospel of Judas in my sermon “Judas and His Gospel.”
What I propose hear has been scholastically defended by Harry Gamble in his book "The New Testament Canon," as well as addressed in light of the inspiration/inerrancy argument by Craig Allert in his book "A High View of Scripture?"
There are currently discussions of the inspiration issue going on at Michael Heiser's blog "The Naked Bible."
P.S. I will continue my examination of the prophets in our "Seeing the Infinite God in Everything" series shortly. I wanted to take a short break from it to offer my input on some really interesting questions that seem to be plaguing us all.
--John
Hi John: Your post illustrates what I view as one of the many paradoxes of this faith. Yes, it is built on Christ. Yet I come to know the person of Christ through the scripture as it is illuminated through the Holy Spirit. Is one more important than the other? I'm not sure. For me the question is like asking if air is more important to human life than water.
Yes. No. Maybe.
It appears that my relationship with a triune God requires something more from me than the comfortable, controllable linear thinking that I have grown to rely on. The best I can do is pray for wisdom and suspend judgement and my learned intellectual habits long enough to allow myself to be educated in a new and rather foreign way of viewing each and every thing that I encounter. Fascinating, really. What a gift.
Joan,
Thanks for your comment.
I think we all struggle with questions like: "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" When we approach the Bible, it seems that our question is "Which comes first, God or the Bible?"
As you have pointed out, clearly God, as He has manifested himself in Christ, comes first. God was around long before the Scriptures in the Bible actually became the Bible. The Bible is a tool, a holy tool (set-apart and above all other tools), but still a tool. The writings in the Bible teach us about God, His Son, and the Holy Spirit, but the Bible's whole point is to lead us back to God.
We do come to know Christ through the Bible, but there comes a point when our relationship with Him needs to transcend the Bibl. After all, God is the object of our worship, not the Bible. I truly believe this is the only way we too can experience the power of inspiration. It is the only way we can begin to see the Infinite God in everything.
--John
Hi John: You are using language that I am not familiar with and I am interested in learning more about what you are saying. To that end, I'd appreciate it if you would clarify a couple of things for me. Please pardon the "list" format if it comes off as a grilling (such are the challenges of online communication.)
Anyway, here goes...
...when you say that "our relationship with God needs to transcend the Bible," what does that look like to you?
...what do you mean when you say that "transcending the Bible is the only way that we too can experience the power of inspiration?"
...what does "seeing the Infinite God in everything" mean?
I look forward to your reply if you can make the time.
Thanks,
Joan
Joan,
I appreciate your questions, and by the way, they don't come off as "grilling me;" I am more than willing to bring some clarity to my position. Here is my response:
1. Our relationship with God needs to transcend the Bible – What I mean by this is that our relationship with God should not end with our reading and studying of the Bible. Undoubtedly, the Bible is fundamental to our understanding of God. But part of understanding the Bible is accepting its goal: To ultimately point us back to God and guide us on our journey with Him. I have seen so many people lose their faith when their understanding of the Bible, or the Bible itself, is challenged. Our faith is not dependant on the Bible because God is not limited or confined by the Bible. God gives us evidence for our faith, encouragement, and guidance in the Bible, but I don’t put it past Him to work outside of it. Simply put, I primarily learn about God through my study of the Bible, but I allow for Him to teach me in other ways, and I realize that even without the Bible, I can have faith in Christ and the redemption he has brought me. I don’t believe in Christ’s redemption of my life because the Bible says so, I believe in Christ’s redemption because I know it in my spirit, I feel it in my bones, and I see it in other people’s lives who believe the same. This tradition existed long before the Bible (e.g., the Apostle’s Creed); this tradition will always exist.
2. Transcending the Bible is the only way that we too can experience the power of inspiration – What I mean by this is that we have to “live out” our faith. We have to go beyond the words in the Bible, and let God penetrate the very fiber of our being. When we let who God is, not just what He has said, become part of us, we are experiencing the Holy Spirit. And in many ways, we are experiencing God himself. The Holy Spirit is what inspired the early church, and it is what should continue to inspire us today. At the heart of inspiration is a God who guides us and leads us in all aspects of our lives. When we let our faith live outside the confines of our devotional time, our studying of the Bible, or of church, we are letting the Holy Spirit work. And when the Holy Spirit works, we are being inspired by God. I don’t put it past God to inspire people like He did in the early church. Who am I to say God can’t still work miracles, or God can’t still transform lives? I am not saying God will inspire people to write books that should be added to the canon of the Bible, because the canonizing process has ceased, but I am saying that God has the ability to inspire people to do other amazing things.
3. Seeing the Infinite God in everything – I have been discussing what it means to see the Infinite God in everything since the beginning of my blog. What I mean by this phrase is that when we realize that God can have a place in all parts of our lives, we begin to see God at work in all parts of our lives. We often limit God to certain spaces or certain times, and in doing so, we lose out on experiencing His presence all the time. God gave us the Holy Spirit so that we could have constant guidance. We have the Spirit so that we can determine God’s will and plan. God is in some way or another involved in all things already, we just have to start looking for Him. I believe we have to unleash our faith from the confines we consider normal, and see where God will lead us. By all means though, we should always read the Bible to see whether or not we are on the right path. There are many people who think they are being lead by God, but are really being lead by themselves or other principalities and powers. So I don’t say this without a word of caution.
I hope my response brings some clarity to my position. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to define some of my phrases and terminology. Let me know if this helps bring some clarity and/or if you have more questions.
--John
Hi John: Thank you for a very thorough response. Not only did you clarify your position, but I think you've helped me to see something else that I believe may be important as I consider my thoughts on these sometimes controversial points of faith. I’ll need to spend some time with this, but will share my initial impressions with you.
As I read your statements above it occurs to me that they are written as if the reader already manifests their faith primarily (or exclusively) "Bible first" and would benefit from being encouraged to expand their perspective and practice of faith beyond this (implied) limited or narrow perspective. If that is true, encouraging balance by rightsizing the Bible in the minds of people who might elevate to a place that limits their experience of God or threatens their faith if their interpretation is called into question makes a lot of sense to me.
However, there may be a potential danger to this approach when dealing with people who did not grow up in the church or who do not have a strong Biblical foundation to “transcend.” Many of these folks (I am one of them) are more than comfortable throwing off shackles and following their intuitive sense of God and seeing God in everything and everywhere. In fact, that is very much the basis of many New Age teachings that I pursued in my early 20s when I was seeking meaning on the heels of a secular upbringing. Without a strong Biblical foundation and a faith that the Bible is more than a just a guide, but the actual living Word of God, however, they…I…might find myself following my intuition out of balance the other way as a result of relegating the Bible to a lesser status.
I suppose this brings me back to my initial comment regarding my hesitation to quantify.
Would love to hear your thoughts…
Joan,
Thanks for responding. I am glad that you have noticed the problem with a "Bible first" type of faith as well, but I would like to clarify a few more things that I am not sure I have been entirely clear on thus far.
I do not think it is us who transcends. I believe it is God who transcends us and in doing so moves us past reading words on a page and into practice. Ultimately the instruction of the Bible is: Let Christ transcend you intellectually and spiritually. Let him be your guide. Perhaps we shouldn't use the word transcend (because of its connotations), but transform.
New Age views of spirituality and what the apostles (and early church fathers) thought it meant to experience the Holy Spirit are two very different things. I can further explain this in a future blog post, but for now, let me say that the difference is that one is based on Christ and the other is not. Experiencing the Spirit of God at work is not a New Age thing, but a Christian thing. I think it is unfortunate that stigmas about the New Age movement have lead many people to abandon the idea of the Holy Spirit at work in our lives. Peter, Paul and all the Old Testament prophets experienced the Spirit at work in their lives. One can call this experience whatever they like, but I can tell you that Buddha and Gandhi didn't come up with it.
I am in no way attempting to set-aside the Bible, or down play its importance. I firmly hold the Bible as an authoritative book that speaks truth into my life and the lives of others. I encourage everyone to read the Bible and hang on each teaching in it. I am merely making the point that Christ ultimately is the Word (the Logos), and nothing else. The Bible points to him, but it is not him. To make it such is to miss the point of the Bible entirely.
"In the beginning was the Word (the Logos) and the Word was with God and Word was God." When we continue to read John 1, we see that the Word is Christ, not the Bible: "And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1:14). Christ is the one who goes on living. Let us not forget that the Bible is only living in so much as we live it out.
Let me know what you think.
--John
Hi John: Thank you for another very thorough response. I am really enjoying this dialog.
I love the paragraph where you draw what I view to be a critical (and more than connotative), distinction between "transcendence" and "transformation."
I believe that genuine and sustained transformation of heart, mind and life requires submission to that which would transform us. It is a humble pursuit that by its nature acknowledges shortcomings (otherwise why transform?) and admits that they cannot or will not be remedied without the help of God. Pursued from a place of mental health and stability, the quest for transformation in pursuit of God defaults in the direction of keeping us right-sized (neither too big or too small). That is why I wholeheartedly agree that experiencing the Holy Spirit is not a New Age thing...and this posture of humility is one of the places that I believe that distinction is best illustrated.
The pursuit of transcendence, on the other hand, by its very definition calls for something else. It speaks to going beyond or going above. One who seeks transcendence as an end runs a greater risk of shifting from the posture of humility to a posture of perceived superiority and that can be very dangerous. This is the narrow path between seeking a deep personal connectedness with the Holy Spirit of God, which I believe is a righteous and Biblical pursuit, and the quest for personal enlightenment and oneness with God that "transcends" the Bible.
Pardon me if it seems like I am nit-picking, but I believe that the place where these two concepts intersect holds great potential to send people off course.
I have been following this conversation with great interest. John's advocacy of "transcending the Bible" was really bothering me, and Joan very clearly articulated my concern. Thank you, Joan, for pursuing that clarification. Your definitions are right on, as is your belief "that the place where these two concepts intersect holds great potential to send people off course."
Joan and Just Curious,
Thanks for your responses.
I agree that we must be very cautious when approaching the intersection of transformation and transcendence. I use words like transcendence and transformation because they seem less foreign to us than the words actually used in the New Testament. Given, transcendence and transformation do have a lot of potentially dangerous connotations (like Buddha transcending his own reality), but nonetheless, I find the terms to be helpful. I also agree that we must contextualize our usage of the terms, so let me try and do that.
In the New Testament, the terms transformation and transcendence do not occur, but there are two terms that carry the same conceptual meaning—justification and sanctification. Both terms are used by Paul, so let’s focus on Paul’s usage for a minute.
Justification is an answer to a problem: We are not in right standing (justified) before God because of the affects of our wrongdoings and all of humanity’s wrongdoings. However, because of who Christ is, his death and resurrection, all who believe in him are made right before God. When justification occurs, Christ is essentially transcending who we are (as wrongdoers), and changing our role before God (making us right before God). In essence Christ is permanently changing us.
After justification has occurred, the Spirit intervenes and carries this work on in us (slowly transforming us). Paul calls this process sanctification (the act of God making us more holy—more like Him). We don't fully experience this process until our lives on earth end and we come face-to-face with our Maker. But for now, those who have humbled themselves before God are allowing for the process to be at work (they are being transformed). Although we have been justified (made right before God), we are still being sanctified (being made holy before him). Although Christ has transcended who we are, we are still being transformed.
Once again, this is where I diverge from New Age thinking. I am not saying it is us who transcends the Bible, but rather Christ who transcends it and us (in fact this is what Orthodox Christian Mysticism in the early church—200-400 AD—was all about). We are not doing the work, Christ is. Because of this, we should never be arrogant about our spiritual status (our transcendence), because we had nothing to do with it. We should also never be arrogant about our transformation, because the Spirit has everything to do with that. I am in complete agreement that this caution should always be put upon words like transcendence and transformation (it is more than a critical caution, it is practical). I appreciate you allowing for me to clarify this point.
Let me know if you and I are starting to be more on the same page. By the way, I have also really enjoyed this dialogue.
--John
John & Joan,
I just wanted to add some thoughts here, hope you don't mind me jumping in:
I believe in Christ’s redemption because I know it in my spirit, I feel it in my bones, and I see it in other people’s lives who believe the same.
John, is this similar to the Mormon’s burning bosom?
This tradition existed long before the Bible (e.g., the Apostle’s Creed); this tradition will always exist.
As noted in my other comment, this is fallacious (if I am understanding you correctly). It is incorrect to say that because the canon was not formalized until a certain date, that therefore the Bible did not exist until then. Scripture was the standard for the early church. Not every church had every part of the NT, but they had some, and it was authoritative. More importantly, they had the OT. They had written revelation to guide them. They did not have to rely on mysticism simply because the NT was not formally canonized yet.
When we let who God is, not just what He has said, become part of us, we are experiencing the Holy Spirit.
I know you will probably object to this, but can you give me any examples of this in Scripture? Are there any instances of exhortation to go beyond what God said that might help guide our thoughts on this? To me, I see time and time again when Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for going beyond what was written and He constantly corrected them by pointed to what was written (It is written… Have you not read… etc).
I don’t put it past God to inspire people like He did in the early church. Who am I to say God can’t still work miracles, or God can’t still transform lives?
The issue is not God’s ability. It is His desire. Does He desire to reveal new information to the world? Based on Hebrews 1, I would say no.
1:1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.
I have seen so many people lose their faith when their understanding of the Bible, or the Bible itself, is challenged.
This is certainly no reason to abandon our trust in the Bible as our only guide for life and faith. It should encourage us to study it more.
I use words like transcendence and transformation because they seem less foreign to us than the words actually used in the New Testament.
I believe we should adhere to Scriptural language as much as possible in order to insure we are thinking correctly about the issue. By abandoning the language that Scripture uses, we run the risk of introducing our own thoughts and ideas into what God has revealed to us. In my opinion, the best way to make Biblical words less foreign is to study them, rather than avoid them.
Thanks for voicing your opinion here John and for calling us to a deeper study of the nature of God's Word. This is a very important topic, so we must be very careful what we say and what conclusions we reach. Like Joan and Justcurious, I must question your conclusions.
Likewise, any writing that resulted from spiritual contemplation could be considered inspired. Epitaphs, commentaries, and what would become biblical books, were all called inspired. Inspiration was a given when a book was evaluated for canonicity.
Can you give an example of what you are referring to? Are you using “inspired” in the sense that some translations use it in 2 Tim 3:16? By “inspired” do you mean “God-breathed”?
Does belief in the Bible equal belief in Christianity? No, because Christianity had already spread around the civilized world long before the entire Bible was canonized.
I do not agree with this line of reasoning and I believe it is fallacious. Why does a lack of a complete Bible lead to the conclusion that Christianity exists apart from written revelation? Perhaps you are not saying that no written revelation is necessary, but rather you are just saying that not all of the Bible is necessary for Christianity? That we may have a portion of the Bible and still have Christianity?
In 2 Timothy 3, in Paul’s parting words to Timothy, he points him to the Scripture that he has had from his childhood:
14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it 15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
Paul was referring to the Old Testament and he said that the Old Testament is able to lead one to Christ. The early church was not left without written revelation from God. They were not left to rely on individual, subjective mysticism.
Christianity equals belief in Christ.
Which Christ? The Christ in the Quran? The Christ in the Book of Mormon? The Christ of liberalism? We know who Christ is by His Word, do we not?
Brandon,
Thanks for your comments and interaction. Below are my responses.
[John: “I believe in Christ’s redemption because I know it in my spirit, I feel it in my bones, and I see it in other people’s lives who believe the same.”]
[Brandon: John, is this similar to the Mormon’s burning bosom?]
[My response: Yes, it very well may be similar to what many Mormons have claimed as a measure of faith, but I can tell you the Mormon sect did not come up with it. The biblical authors claimed to experience God, and know Christ’s redemption because of the transformation they experienced. They saw his resurrection and felt the Holy Spirit moving them. Having an existential experience with God involves the Holy Spirit; it does not belong to any particular denomination.]
[John: This tradition existed long before the Bible (e.g., the Apostle’s Creed); this tradition will always exist.]
[Brandon: As noted in my other comment, this is fallacious (if I am understanding you correctly). It is incorrect to say that because the canon was not formalized until a certain date, that therefore the Bible did not exist until then. Scripture was the standard for the early church. Not every church had every part of the NT, but they had some, and it was authoritative. More importantly, they had the OT. They had written revelation to guide them. They did not have to rely on mysticism simply because the NT was not formally canonized yet.]
[My response: The earliest New Testament manuscript we have dates between 125-150 AD. Nearly every Bible scholar in the world would tell you that Paul’s Letters, which were the first part of the New Testament to be written, were not written until around 60 AD (at the earliest). The only part of the canonization process which had been finalized by the time of Jesus was the Pentateuch (Gen, Exod, Lev, Num, Deut). Perhaps, the prophets were canonized, but there is a good chance that their writings were not yet either. Finally, the poetical books (or the Writings) most definitely had not been canonized. Really, the only written text they were reading and following in the early church was the Pentateuch, and some of the prophets. Was it authoritative? Yes, but what they heard about Jesus came in other ways. Did they find reflections of the coming Messiah in the Old Testament? Yes, but they likely did understand that he would be resurrected until Jesus came. Almost everything they knew about Jesus they either experienced or knew because of oral tradition. Remember, most people in this period did not read or write, they listened, memorized, and spoke. They were an oral culture. And where did books like the Gospels come from? Oral tradition, of course. The Bible is our primary guide, I don’t hesitate to say that, but I will not say it was theirs. Because they definitely had others: Oral Tradition, what they themselves experienced, and what they knew to be true through the Holy Spirit.]
[John: When we let who God is, not just what He has said, become part of us, we are experiencing the Holy Spirit.]
[Brandon I know you will probably object to this, but can you give me any examples of this in Scripture? Are there any instances of exhortation to go beyond what God said that might help guide our thoughts on this? To me, I see time and time again when Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for going beyond what was written and He constantly corrected them by pointed to what was written (It is written… Have you not read… etc).]
[My response: To begin: take a look at Psalm 51:10; Acts 8:14-24; and 1 Cor 3:16; 12:1-3. As far as the Pharisee comment goes, what I am getting at is not about setting aside Scripture and relying on other tradition or new teachings. I am talking about experiencing the Holy Spirit by letting God have complete control over our lives. Moving past just reading the Bible to living it.]
[John: I don’t put it past God to inspire people like He did in the early church. Who am I to say God can’t still work miracles, or God can’t still transform lives?]
[Brandon: The issue is not God’s ability. It is His desire. Does He desire to reveal new information to the world? Based on Hebrews 1, I would say no. 1:1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.]
[My response: Even when God speaks to us, He speaks by His Son, because His Son is the vehicle of salvation and the reason why we can continue to dialogue with God. What do you think the author of Hebrews (whose sermon would become canonized) was doing, speaking on his own accord? No, he too was speaking by the Son. The Son guided him, and the Son can guide us. God didn’t just stop speaking, we stopped listening. Yes, we can hear God in the Scriptures, and that is our primary guide, but we also need to be willing to hear His Holy Spirit speak to us.]
[John: I have seen so many people lose their faith when their understanding of the Bible, or the Bible itself, is challenged.]
[Brandon: This is certainly no reason to abandon our trust in the Bible as our only guide for life and faith. It should encourage us to study it more.]
[My response: I never said to abandon our trust in the Bible as our guide for life and faith. I merely said we have to pay attention to the Holy Spirit as well. When your faith is in the actual being of God, and not just what He said in the Bible, and the Bible comes under scrutiny, your faith is not shattered, you merely take the time to examine it and realize that God is bigger than any questions that arise.]
[John: I use words like transcendence and transformation because they seem less foreign to us than the words actually used in the New Testament.]
[Brandon: I believe we should adhere to Scriptural language as much as possible in order to insure we are thinking correctly about the issue. By abandoning the language that Scripture uses, we run the risk of introducing our own thoughts and ideas into what God has revealed to us. In my opinion, the best way to make Biblical words less foreign is to study them, rather than avoid them.]
[My response: Brandon, I think you have assumed a lot about me. I in no way, shape, or form, am discouraging people from studying the Bible or biblical words. In fact, I have been in Biblical Studies my entire career, both involved in academic study and conveying the message of Scripture to the church.
Anytime we interpret the Bible we run the risk of losing sight of the meaning of the Bible. And every time we read the Bible, or translate it, we are interpreting it. There is no flawless interpretation and there is no flawless translation. Every time you or I speak about God, we are interpreting Him too. Therefore, I think we should use whatever language best helps to communicate what God has taught us through the Bible and in the work of the Holy Spirit. I find particular terminology is helpful to me and others, so I will continue to use it.]
[John: Likewise, any writing that resulted from spiritual contemplation could be considered inspired. Epitaphs, commentaries, and what would become biblical books, were all called inspired. Inspiration was a given when a book was evaluated for canonicity.]
[Brandon: Can you give an example of what you are referring to? Are you using “inspired” in the sense that some translations use it in 2 Tim 3:16? By “inspired” do you mean “God-breathed”?]
[My response: Yes, I am referring to the term “inspired” (theopneustos) which is used in 2 Tim 3:16. My position here has recently been defended in Craig Allert’s book “A High View of Scripture?,” which I cited in my first comment.
The word “inspired” (theopneustos) is used nowhere else in Paul’s writings, or in the New Testament. Here are the examples I referred to in my original post (I have personally read each of these in Greek myself, so I can tell you their legitimate):
Commentary: Gregory of Nyssa (ca. 330 AD-ca.395 AD) makes reference to his brother Basil’s commentary on the first six days of creation “as an inspired (theopneuston) exposition … [admired] no less than the words composed by Moses himself.”
Epitaph: The Life of Abercius written about Abercius Marcellus, the Bishop of Hierapolis in the 2nd century AD, states that Abercius’ epitaph (which Abercius composed himself) is an “inspired inscription” (theopneuston epigramma).
About an Epistle from a council: The fifth-century ecumenical Council of Ephesus (431 AD) issued an epistle that describes the council’s condemnation of Nestorius as “their inspired decision” (auton theopneustou kriseos).
These quotations are taken from “A High View of Scripture?,” 64-65.
From these references it is clear that the early church fathers found the word “inspired” (theopneustos) appropriate to use when describing non-canonical writings.]
[John: Does belief in the Bible equal belief in Christianity? No, because Christianity had already spread around the civilized world long before the entire Bible was canonized.]
[Brandon: I do not agree with this line of reasoning and I believe it is fallacious. Why does a lack of a complete Bible lead to the conclusion that Christianity exists apart from written revelation? Perhaps you are not saying that no written revelation is necessary, but rather you are just saying that not all of the Bible is necessary for Christianity? That we may have a portion of the Bible and still have Christianity?
In 2 Timothy 3, in Paul’s parting words to Timothy, he points him to the Scripture that he has had from his childhood:
14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it 15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
Paul was referring to the Old Testament and he said that the Old Testament is able to lead one to Christ. The early church was not left without written revelation from God. They were not left to rely on individual, subjective mysticism.]
[My response: Everything involves subjectivity, including interpreting the Bible. No person is without presupposition. Written revelation is a component of modern Christianity, and a component of early Christianity. However, it is merely a component.
The point of Christianity is faith in Christ, not merely trust in the Bible. Christ is the object of our worship, not the Bible. Trust in the Bible is without a doubt one of the most integral parts of our faith, but let’s not forget the point of most of the New Testament: Trust in Christ and let him transform your life.
Timothy learned wisdom from parts of what would become the Old Testament, but it was not his only guide. Paul was his guide, his parents were his guide, and the church he learned from was his guide. Paul tells Timothy to lean back upon the Scriptures because he knows they are dependable. I agree with Paul, they are. But don’t forget, Paul didn’t say: “Lean upon the Scriptures and forget about the Holy Spirit.”
(By the way, the Old Testament was not complete in this period, only the Pentateuch is complete. Not to mention that the word Scripture (which means written things) is used in broader terms than just what is in the Pentateuch in this period. There is plenty of evidence for this as well. Go read Craig Allert’s book if you want to read up on it, or Lee Martin McDonald’s “The Biblical Canon”).
I respect your advocacy for the biblical text, and please don’t forget I am an equal advocate for it. I am merely encouraging people to listen to the Holy Spirit and not be afraid of it. I am also trying to encourage people to and realize that inspiration was not the only factor in determining what was in or out of the Bible. My overall point is: Move past just reading the Bible, and let God transform your life through it. Let Him having a living and active role in all parts of your life.]
[John: Christianity equals belief in Christ.]
[Brandon: Which Christ? The Christ in the Quran? The Christ in the Book of Mormon? The Christ of liberalism? We know who Christ is by His Word, do we not?]
[My response: There is no Christ in the Quran. The term Christ has its origins in the Hebrew word “Messiah.” It was a term used to refer to an “anointed one” of God. And of course, I mean Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ (Messiah).
The book of Mormon is an interpretation, it is not canonized Scripture. It may be canonized for their community, but it was not canonized by the early church. Therefore, I put it on the same playing field as any other commentary on Scripture: To be evaluated for its historic, critical and theological merits (I would give it none of these merits).
Liberalism is a very broad category (it has become kind of a catch-all), I am not sure what you mean by it. I assume you mean the Jesus of the Historical Jesus Seminar (one that was merely a prophet). Of course, I don’t mean this type of Jesus, I hold Jesus to be God’s Son, a worker of miracles, and the bringer of salvation to the world through his death and resurrection. We do know who Christ is by God’s Word (the Bible)! I in no way am making any other claim, I have merely made the point that we have to realize it does not end there.
Christ dwells with us through his Holy Spirit. We should try and know him that way as well.]
--John
John, thanks for taking the time to respond.
The biblical authors claimed to experience God, and know Christ’s redemption because of the transformation they experienced.
What authors are you referring to? What passages of Scripture are you referring to so we can look at them together?
The only part of the canonization process which had been finalized by the time of Jesus was the Pentateuch (Gen, Exod, Lev, Num, Deut)… Really, the only written text they were reading and following in the early church was the Pentateuch, and some of the prophets.
I must be misunderstanding you. What do you do with the overwhelming amount of quotation by NT writers of the OT? Every book except for Esther is quoted in the NT. Jesus quoted from the law, from the Psalms, and the prophets. I’m honestly not sure how you can possibly say “the only written text they were reading and following… was the Pentateuch.”
Move past just reading the Bible, and let God transform your life through it. Let Him having a living and active role in all parts of your life.
God transforms my life through the reading and studying of His Word. Jesus said “Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth” (John 17:17).
Brandon,
Thanks for your response. Here is my response to your most recent comments.
[John: The biblical authors claimed to experience God, and know Christ’s redemption because of the transformation they experienced.]
[Brandon: What authors are you referring to? What passages of Scripture are you referring to so we can look at them together?]
[My response: “To start, just begin by reading the book of Acts. In Acts, all the Apostles experienced the Holy Spirit coming down on them (Acts 2). Paul then has his own experience of transformation later on in Acts (Acts 13:9; 22). There are plenty of other examples of Old Testament writers experiencing God (Moses in Exodus 3; Isaiah in Isaiah 6). The examples go on and on.”]
[John: The only part of the canonization process which had been finalized by the time of Jesus was the Pentateuch (Gen, Exod, Lev, Num, Deut)… Really, the only written text they were reading and following in the early church was the Pentateuch, and some of the prophets.]
[Brandon: I must be misunderstanding you. What do you do with the overwhelming amount of quotation by NT writers of the OT? Every book except for Esther is quoted in the NT. Jesus quoted from the law, from the Psalms, and the prophets. I’m honestly not sure how you can possibly say “the only written text they were reading and following… was the Pentateuch.”]
[My response: I apologize if my language was a bit hyperbolic in my last response. I mis-phrased my point. They were indeed reading and following other texts, but the only canonized text was the Pentateuch. Other than that, only the prophets had gained immense authoritative status. This has long been understood in canon studies, I am not pulling it out of thin air. See the books I recommended, if you want to read up on it.
Yes, the Old Testament is quoted throughout the New Testament. I know Jesus quoted from the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets. I also know Esther is the only book not quoted or alluded to in the New Testament. But quoting a book, or alluding to it, does not mean it was canonized. Enoch is quoted in Jude, but only the Ethiopic church considers it canonized. Homer’s Iliad is alluded to numerous times in Acts (maybe even quoted). Furthermore, direct phrases used for Caesar and the Greek god Dionysius are used numerous times in Mark. Do these quotations make each of these books canonical as well? Of course not, I go back to my original four points of what makes something canonical. (For more on this, check out the three books I have already recommended, as well as Martin Hengel’s “Judaism and Hellenism”).]
[John: Move past just reading the Bible, and let God transform your life through it. Let Him having a living and active role in all parts of your life.]
[Brandon: God transforms my life through the reading of His Word. Jesus said “Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth” (John 17:17).]
[My response: God transforms my life through reading the Bible as well. But, as I already mentioned, let’s not forget that Christ is the Word (the Logos). He was the one in the beginning and He is the one who was made flesh. I don’t worship the Bible; I worship God by means of Christ. I follow what the Bible teaches, but I am sure to always acknowledge its ultimate author, the Maker, as my God and my ultimate guide. I am sure we agree on this point, so let’s try and find some mutual ground here.]
I appreciate you continuing to interact with this and help me clarify my points.
--John
There are some other issues addressed in my comments in the Q & A section: "Is faith in Christianity really just faith in the Bible?
--John