Wow, so what do you really believe? ...Statement of Faith

[Paidion]

The apostle Paul had it right, in 1 Corinthians 8:6 — one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ.

... for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

The concept of God being a Trinity is never found in the writings of Paul. It is also the case that well over 95% of New Testament instances of the word "God" refer to the Father alone. This is not to say that Jesus, being the only-begotten Son of God is not divine. But He Himself addressed the Father in prayer as "the only true God." (John 17:3). If God were a Trinity, a compound Being, then Jesus would have prayed, "This is eternal life, that they may know You and Me and the Holy Spirit, all of which comprise the only true God." But instead, He prayed:

This is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.

With that little conjunction "and" He identified Himself as someone OTHER THAN "the only true God."

[DaveB]

Chesterton vs. Bible? As much as I like Chesterton - no contest.
In addition, that quote from Chesterton is one of the more unfortunate ones, imo. Jesus Christ shows us what God is like - not a cold remote-controller of things - but a wonderful, loving, just and wise Creator and redeemer. G.K. was guilty here of caricature.

[LLC]

I would say that Jesus was speaking to the sons of Israel, and the verse should read "My god, My god why have you forsaken Me."

I like your novel approach, but I think it’s completely off-base. The basis for Jesus’ words was David’s cry of desperation to Yahweh, NOT “the sons of Israel”.

David was fully human as well as a sinner. He may have felt that God had forsaken him in his sin. However, Jesus was different. Whether one believes Jesus was God, or another divine person sent from God, He had complete faith in God's word. According to the Bible, He WAS God's Word. So the question would be, does God forsake His own Word or does man forsake God's word? According to Jesus, heaven and earth may pass away but His word will never pass away.

[davo]

With all due respect LLC you are completely and deliberately avoiding and diverting from the point you yourself have claimed… that Jesus’ “my god my god” was addressed to “the sons of Israel” WHEN Jesus in fact in quoting David was CLEARLY and UNEQUIVOCALLY addressing the Father.

[LLC]

Davo, I don't believe in penal substitution, so I don't think Jesus represented the sinner whom God was pouring out His wrath upon. I believe that He was all the Gospels say He was, the light that shines in the darkness, the true vine, the bread of life that comes down from heaven, the truth, the true shepherd that cares for the sheep etc. etc. . As John 1:1 says, He was the Word and the Word was God. However, He was rejected of men, held in low esteem, scoffed at, called a liar, spit upon, beaten, hung upon the cross and left to suffer and die. So I don't see any reason why Jesus would be asking Himself the question, ' God why have you forsaken Me?' It's plain and clear to me who was forsaking who in this case.

As a believer in God, when I look around the world and see all the evils going on, I don't ask God why He has forsaken us because I trust in Him and know that He never forsakes. "Seek and ye shall find." I look and wonder why we refuse to change our ways and do not follow God's Word, especially those who claim to be Christians.

[davo]

So I don't see any reason why Jesus would be asking Himself the question, ' God why have you forsaken Me?' It's plain and clear to me who was forsaking who in this case.

Well, for 1) Jesus was NOT “asking Himself the question” and 2) Why??... because, umm he was being crucified!

I understand your theological position, BUT that’s what it is, a ‘theological position’ BUT the text and context don’t lend themselves to that reading. You have Jesus saying to the crowd in his very best modern western vernacular… “OMG! OMG! Why have y’all forsaken me?!” << based upon what I’ve already shown… I don’t think so.

From the Greek text… “forsaken” <ἐγκατέλιπες> egkatelipes is in the 2nd Person, SINGULAR, i.e., pointing in this case to “God” whom Jesus WAS addressing. Had your scenario been in play the Greek would reflect at least 2nd or 3rd Person, PLURAL as per the likes of 2Tim 4:16 (<ἐγκατέλιπον> egkatelipon); it does not because it is not.

[LLC]

Davo, when it comes to interpreting Greek, I am at a loss. No, I don't believe Jesus was addressing Himself. He was addressing those who were rejecting Him. If Jesus was addressing the leaders of Israel or all those who were rejecting Him whole, then I suppose this would be singular. As John 9:22 says, "The Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected(forsaken) by the elders and the chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day." According to John 8:29 Jesus does not feel like the Father has forsaken Him in any way, for He says this: "And He who sent Me is with Me. The Father has not left Me alone." Again in John 16:32 He says the same thing, "Indeed the hour is coming, yes has now come, that you will be scattered, each to his own, and will leave Me alone. And yet I am not alone(forsaken), because the Father is with Me." Even His own disciples abandoned Him and left. Was it God or was it man who crucified Jesus? My questions would be, in what way did God forsake Jesus, and why would Jesus think that God had left Him?

[davo]

Jesus was indeed “rejected” (a completely different word from “forsaken”) by the elders etc, but God had NOT forsaken Jesus, BUT in the terror of the event such is what Jesus felt, thus his very human cry… probably not dissimilar to his anguish of soul as found in Lk 22:41-44.

Question LLC… what is the basis of your assertion that assumes Jesus’ “My God” cry equates to and is therefore the same as today’s irreligious “OMG”? << because THAT’S what you are saying.

[Paidion]

LLC, even if Jesus had been using "My God" in a profane sense, it wouldn't make sense if He didn't have a God (being God Himself).

But according to the apostle Paul, Jesus does have a God—the Father:

I do not cease to give thanks for you, remembering you in my prayers, that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him... (Ephesians 1:17, 18 ESV)

[LLC]

Jesus was indeed “rejected” (a completely different word from “forsaken”) by the elders etc, but God had NOT forsaken Jesus, BUT in the terror of the event such is what Jesus felt, thus his very human cry… probably not dissimilar to his anguish of soul as found in Lk 22:41-44.

Question LLC… what is the basis of your assertion that assumes Jesus’ “My God” cry equates to and is therefore the same as today’s irreligious “OMG”? << because THAT’S what you are saying.

Davo, According to the dictionary forsaken means just that, rejected, abandoned, cast aside, deserted, disowned, turned one's back on, etc. etc. God did not do any of these things. He was not the one who crucified Jesus. According to John 14:28, Jesus was going to the Father.
I don't see how His cry of anguish would be considered irreligious whether He was addressing God or the people of Israel. There are many verses in the Bible where God tells His people that they have forsaken Him, ( Deut 28:20, Deut 29:25, Judges 10:13, 1 Kgs 11:33, 1Kgs 19:10, 2Kgs 22:17, Jer 9:13, Jer 5:19, 2Chron 12:5 .....the list goes on and on).
As the Bible says, "God so loved the world". If this is true, then I think that the anguish Jesus felt was in the fact that His own creation rejected Him. I don't know if you have any children, but when my kids say mean things to me, it feels like my heart has been ripped out.

[[email protected]]

LLC, why again are you objecting to the common answer that 'Jesus was made sin', that is the holy made unholy, rejected, for the purpose of being mankind's sacrifice of atonement? Though crucified by mankind, Jesus willingly subjected himself to this suffering because of his obedient love for God the Father and also his decision to love mankind. And even though Jesus went the whole way to death itself he knew that after the atonement was accomplished he would be raised from the dead. Why do you object to this simple explanation?

[Paidion]

LLC, you are quite right in saying that God did not forsake Jesus, or cause His crucifixion. I don't think any of us are suggesting such a thing.

What I am saying, is that the pre-incarnate Son of God was fully human when He was born as a human being—not a God-Man hybrid, but fully human. For that reason He had human emotions. When He was about to die by crucifixion, He cried out in His humanity, "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me..." (Matt 26:39 NASB). When the Father didn't prevent His death, in his humanity, He FELT forsaken by the Father. But human feelings can be deceiving. Out of his humanity (in the days of His flesh), Jesus cried out strongly to the Father and wept, desiring to be saved from death and suffering. Though the Father didn't save Him FROM death, He did save Him OUT OF death, as the writer to the Hebrews states:

Who in the days of his flesh, having offered up both supplications and entreaties to him who was able to save him out of death, with strong crying and tears; (and having been heard because of his piety;) (Hebrews 5:7 Darby)

How did the Father save Him out of death? By raising Him to life again. Unfortunately, most translations have this verse saying "who was able to save Him FROM death." But the Greek word is "εκ" and the most usual translation is "out of."

So it's not that the Father was able to save Jesus FROM death, but He didn't. Rather, it's that He was able to save Him OUT OF death, and He did!
Because of Jesus' piety, God heard His loud cries, and saw His tears. The Father responded to His supplications and entreaties by raising Him to life!

[Eaglesway]

Great post!

[DaveB]

Noone take offense at this, Please!

Do you really think it could be, that the pre-existent Son (not a belief I hold btw) was somehow converted into DNA? Seriously - Mary's egg was fertilized somehow, right? And it had to be human DNA? I mean - think about the implications - for Him to be fully human, he would have to be conceived as fully human - and fully human beings are not born with memories, recollections, visions, etc. - we are all limited beings.

Well you can think about that if you like- there are many more implications to the whole concept.

[Paidion]

Do you really think it could be, that the pre-existent Son (not a belief I hold btw) was somehow converted into DNA?

No, I don't think so.

Seriously - Mary's egg was fertilized somehow, right?

Wrong. It is possible that it was unfertilized and that the spirit of God caused it to grow into a human being without a father. Even in nature there are forms of life with a mother and no father. Even from the egg of a honey bee, a female develops from a fertilized egg, and a male from a non-fertilized egg. Jesus' birth was unique. He was the only human being to have pre-existed His birth. For that reason, perhaps no one can explain the modus operandi by which He became human. But He did it, according to the apostle Paul:

Think among yourselves that [thinking] which was also in Messiah Jesus, who beginning in the form of God, did not consider equality with God a thing to be seized, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a slave, having been begotten in the likeness of human beings. He humbled Himself, having become obedient until death—the death of the cross. (Php 2:5-8)

This passage tells us that Jesus began in the form of God [having been begotten by God as God's first act], but did not attempt to seize equality with God [as Satan perhaps did] but emptied Himself [divested Himself of all His divine attributes] and then was begotten in a way that He resembled any other human being. The only thing He retained of His former existence was His identity as the only Son of God.

And it had to be human DNA?

His DNA, all of which came from his mother was human—yes.

I mean - think about the implications - for Him to be fully human, he would have to be conceived as fully human - and fully human beings are not born with memories, recollections, visions, etc. - we are all limited beings.

Not exactly. His birth was unique. No one else ever pre-existed. Even He was not born with memories, etc. As a baby He cried for His mother's milk [notwithstanding the Xmas carol "Away in a Manger" that has the line, "The little Lord Jesus, no crying He makes." He wet his diapers (or the equivalent from those days) like any other baby. I am not sure when He first became aware of His former identity, but I think He had that knowledge at least by the age of 12 when He went to the temple listening to the teachers and asking them questions. Later, He asked His parents, "Don't you know that I must be about the things of my Father?" So it seems He understood that God was His Father in a special way at least by that time.

[Paidion]

Think among yourselves that [thinking] which was also in Messiah Jesus, who beginning in the form of God, did not consider equality with God a thing to be seized, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a slave, having been begotten in the likeness of human beings. He humbled Himself, having become obedient until death—the death of the cross. (Philippians 2:5-8)

Messiah Jesus was begotten (came forth) as the first of God's acts in the form of God (fully divine), as God's divine Son. But He didn't think of seizing equality with God for Himself, but emptied Himself of all his divine attributes, and having been begotten from the womb of Mary as a complete human being, He became the slave of God, always obedient to God, right until His death. As a human being, He was fully human—not a God-man, but a human being only. As a man, the only thing He retained of his former existence was his identity as the Son of God. He had all the weakness of the human nature, tempted in all points such as we are, but through his trust in his God, he never yielded to wrongdoing. In his humanity, He had no super-powers. All the miracles ascribed to Him were performed by his God through Him. Jesus Himself said, “Truly, truly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord..." (John 5:19) and "I can do nothing on my own" (John 5:30).

So Jesus was neither a God-man or a mere human being like any other human being. In his pre-incarnate state He was fully divine, but He emptied Himself of His divine attributes and became fully human. He continued fully human throughout his life until death. But God raised Him to life again and "highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Php 2:9-11 ESV). Jesus was not only restored to his former divine condition but was glorified to an even higher state as God's reward for full obedience.

[DaveB]

One of the drawbacks of a Forum is my temptation to throw a few 'zingers' and consider the problem solved.
If anyone is willing to read for 15 or 20 minutes, here is an exegesis of Ph. 2.5-8 that will reward some attention. I'm not saying it will convince you, but the arguments are strong that the 'form' (morphe) being talked about is an outward form, not an inner nature, and that nothing in the verses teach either Trinitarianism or the pre-existence of the Son.
Maybe we'll take up that 'mere man' theme at some time.

For now,I think this is important, and would love to get your feedback:
http://www.christianmonotheism.com/media/text/Microsoft%20Word%20-%20Philippians%202-6-8.pdf

A very short excerpt towards the end:
While Trinitarians have argued among themselves about the meaning of Philippians
2:6-8, an unfortunate thing has occurred—the loss of the actual meaning of the verse.
The verse is not speaking either of Christ’s giving up his “Godhood” at his incarnation or
of his God-nature being willing to “hide” so that his man-nature can show itself clearly.
Rather, it is saying something else. Scripture says Christ was the “image of God” (2 Cor.
4:4), and Jesus himself testified that if one had seen him, he had seen the Father. Saying
that Christ was in the “form” (outward appearance) of God is simply stating that truth in
another way. Unlike Adam, who grasped at being like God (Gen. 3:5), Christ, the Last
Adam, “emptied himself” of all his reputation and the things due him as the true child of
the King. He lived in the same fashion as other men. He humbled himself to the Word
and will of God. He lived by “It is written” and the commands of his Father. He did not
“toot his own horn,” but instead called himself “the son of man,” which, in the Aramaic
language he spoke, meant “a man.” He trusted God and became obedient, even to a
horrible and shameful death on a cross.

[LLC]

LLC, why again are you objecting to the common answer that 'Jesus was made sin', that is the holy made unholy, rejected, for the purpose of being mankind's sacrifice of atonement? Though crucified by mankind, Jesus willingly subjected himself to this suffering because of his obedient love for God the Father and also his decision to love mankind. And even though Jesus went the whole way to death itself he knew that after the atonement was accomplished he would be raised from the dead. Why do you object to this simple explanation?

Jeff, I object to the common answer because it sounds odd and leaves one with too many questions. Usually this is an indication that there is something wrong with the explanation. Jesus knew from the start that He was going to die for the truth and He was ready and willing to do so because He believed in and trusted God with all His heart and mind. He states several times that yes, man would forsake Him, but God was with Him. He also says that all He had to do was ask and God would send many legions of angels. He knew where he was going upon His death as He says "I am going to the Father" We are told to have faith in God, that He will always be there for us, and that even in our darkest hours we are to fear no evil "for thou art with me". It does not sound right to say that Jesus believed all of this, yet on His very last breath He somehow feels that God has totally abandoned Him.
As you say, He was made a sinner. However, this was not God's doing. The leaders of Israel and those who rejected God were the ones who "numbered Him with the transgressors." They cast Him aside because He did not follow THEIR laws. How dare He turn His back on the god of Israel and not follow their laws and ways. According to them, He was an unrighteous, unholy sinner who deserved to be put to death. The truth is that Jesus WAS the true God and THEY were the ones who had forsaken Him.

[Eaglesway]

I believe the egg in Mary's womb was fertilized by the seed, the Logos, the Word. That is the DNA of YHWH, so Jesus grew up as a true being(I Am), undivided in His love for the Father and his fellowmen.

We also are born, not of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man but of God, by the incorruptible seed, that living and abiding word of God- and the new creature in us is also a true being, undivided in love for the Father and our fellowman.

[Paidion]

Hi Dave,
I read the article, and the thrust of it seems to be to show by many examples that "morph" refers to outward form. I agree that that is the case.
But I don't see that fact as affecting my position at all.

The quoted passage from Philippians 2, states that Jesus BEGAN in the form of God. That is God begat His Son, the first of His acts, as Another exactly like Himself—same form, but different Individual. That He was exactly like the Father comes out in His words: "He who has seen me has seen the Father." Yet, even in His pre-incarnate state, He was in a secondary position to the Father, and was always subservient to Him; He did not attempt to seize equality with God, but in becoming a man, "emptied Himself" of His divine attributes and became fully human. After His sacrifice on our behalf, and after God raised Him to life again, He was exalted to an even greater position than He had prior to having become a man.

[DaveB]

He did not attempt to seize equality with God, but in becoming a man, "emptied Himself" of His divine attributes

Among other things, I'm not at all sure that what he emptied himself of was 'divine attributes'. That would still leave, if I follow you correctly, his divine 'nature' - which would make him a two-nature being, and not fully man (Unless we do some real verbal gymnastics and imo torture the meaning of the words.)

I think he emptied himself of those things the Phillipians were full of - “selfish ambition” (1:15; 2:3) and “vain conceit” (2:3) - things that fully human beings are so prone to - and thus Paul told them to emulate Christ, who even though was in the form of God, emptied himself of those besetting characteristics.

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

Time to stir up a hornet's nest.



Where does spirital healing fit into this day and age? St. Paul did talk about the gift of healing, and other gifts. Now:

The Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches, say it is available with the canonized saints, relics and holy places

The Pentecostals say it is now available, with the gifts of the holy spirit

Some TV evangelists tell me it's still available

.

Other spiritual traditions, like the Native Americans, Sufism and the Bruno Groening Circle of Friends, tell me it's still available.

One can see it in the recent movie, 'Miracles From Heaven. It's described at True story behind 'Miracles From Heaven'

If I take the Christian metaphysical traditions of Christian Science, Unity, Divine Science and the Infinite Way, I can alter them from a theology, to a contemplation on:


The goodness of God
Being created in the image and likeness of God
The healing power of Christ.

Even the Quaker founder George Fox, reportedly had the gift of healing

You might find this talk on Mary Baker Eddy and Joel Goldsmith interesting (think contemplation or meditation - not theology)



Or that Native American Healing presentation:



Nothing is taken away from what modern traditional medicine and complimentary medicine - also have to offer.

So what say ye?

[[email protected]]

Good point Randy, thanks for the reminder. I added 'miracles and prophecy' to the list of God's sovereign activities. Statements of faith sometimes grow too large trying to qualify and address every issue, but this was easily added to remind us of the good news that God does still work miracles of healing and otherwise. Again I am still listening closely to this post with the goal to tune the statement of faith now just updated below...

====

1. In one true God, existing eternally as one God in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, John 14:9-21, who is in essence spirit, John 4:24, light, 1 John 1:5, and love, 1 John 4:8.

2. That the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments are the unique, inerrant, inspired Word of God in the original autographs, and the final authority in all matters of faith and conduct, 2 Tim 3:16.

3. In the sovereignty and active rule of God in creation, the fall, history, revelation, miracles, prophecy, redemption, and final judgment, Romans 8:20-21.

4. That man was created by God in His image, but that since Adam's fall, all men are sinful and by nature objects deserving of God's wrath, Ephesians 2:3.

5. That Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, fully human and fully divine, eternally existing as God, yet born in time of a virgin, and that He lived a sinless and perfect life, 2 Timothy 2:5.

6. In the historic death of Jesus as the full and only atonement, guaranteeing loving forgiveness for the sins of all mankind, in His bodily resurrection from the dead, and in His ascension to the right hand of the Father, 1 John 2:1-2.

7. That all mankind is justified by the loving grace of God and redeemed on the basis of the death of Christ alone, which is received through faith alone, Ephesians 2:8-9.

8. That the Holy Spirit is the effective agent in regeneration, bringing individuals to faith and transformed lives, 2 Corinthians 3:18.

9. In one invisible, universal church, the Body of Christ, to which all true believers belong, and in local churches accountable to God, governed by officers with the authority to rule in matters of belief and discipline, Hebrews 13:17.

10. That believing mankind is rewarded in paradise after death, while unbelievers suffer punishment in Hades after death merited by their sinful nature and their rejection of the grace of Christ, Luke 16:19-31.

11. In the future, visible, physical return of the Lord Jesus Christ in glory, Titus 2:13.

12. In the final resurrection of redeemed mankind to the enjoyment of God forever, and the damnation of those excluded from the Book of Life to the Lake of Fire prepared for the Devil and his angels for the ages of the ages, Matthew 25:31-46 and Revelation 20:10.

[Paidion]

Among other things, I'm not at all sure that what he emptied himself of was 'divine attributes'. That would still leave, if I follow you correctly, his divine 'nature' - which would make him a two-nature being, and not fully man (Unless we do some real verbal gymnastics and imo torture the meaning of the words.)

As I see it, after the divine self-emptying, the only aspect of his former existence that He retained, was his identity as the ONLY begotten Son of God, (begotten as the first of God's acts). This would not imply that He was a two-natured being. Indeed, his divine nature (including all of its attributes) that He had possessed in virtue of being the divine Son, is exactly that of which He emptied Himself. So He was fully human, but the same Individual who existed prior to his birth from Mary (since He retained his identity).

Though He didn't have two natures, He did have two births—that birth before all ages—the first of God's acts, and his birth from mother Mary.

[DaveB]

That is a very subtle, if real, distinction between identity and nature. I'm not at all certain that the two can be separated (at birth ). For one thing, once separated from identity (if that were possible) - whither goes the nature?

C.S. Lewis has an interesting essay on the word "nature" and if I remember correctly, analyzes 17 or so different usages of the word. (Studies in Words)

The word 'identity' is also multivocal and ambiguous.

I don't know if you want to go any further on these issues - we'll be at least knee deep in analytic philosophy before we're done.

[pilgrim]

Hi Jeff
Thanks for your statement of faith. Are you interested in any comments/ queries etc regarding your statement of faith or is it just for info.?

[[email protected]]

Yes, please! Comments and questions eagerly desired. The goal is to work toward a brief Biblical statement of faith recognizing Christ as the savior of all mankind.

[pilgrim]

I'd like to ask where your confidence in no. 2 comes from? Specifically, justification for the belief that the 66 books are "The Word of God" and secondly, where your belief that the original autographs are 'inerrant' comes from and what value this belief may have considering that the original autographs do not now exist?
Your answers may help to clarify my own position.

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

I'd like to ask where your confidence in no. 2 comes from? Specifically, justification for the belief that the 66 books are "The Word of God" and secondly, where your belief that the original autographs are 'inerrant' comes from and what value this belief may have considering that the original autographs do not now exist?
Your answers may help to clarify my own position.

Let me add to Pilgrim's questions.

Why do you believe that those who comprised the Protestant canon of scripture - got things "correct"? As opposed to the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox or any other canons of scripture? And why did the others get the canon wrong?

If inerrant is correct, then who or what should a person follow - if they are confused? The Southern Baptist Convention? My favorite TV evangelist? Etc. Whom or what should a person turn to, in order to get a "correct inerrant understanding"?

[[email protected]]

Thanks for the good questions. I get back to you shortly. I heard you ask...

1. How do we know the 66 book are God's word ( and not more or less )?
2. How do we know the documents that God gave us are without error in the original?
3. How can those who comprised the Protestant canon of scripture be right as opposed to Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox?
4. If we say the Scriptures are inerrant is there then an inerrant interpretation? Which group or tradition should we follow?

[Paidion]

1. How do we know the 66 book are God's word ( and not more or less )?

For those who do hold this, what is the justification for including the book of Esther (in which God is not mentioned at all in the Protestant version) and excluding the book of Judith? Each of the books is about a heroic woman who saved the Hebrews from being eliminated.

There were many different opinions in the early church as to which writings were to be read in the churches. 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude, and Revelation were rejected by some and were suspect by others. Paul's fellow worker Clement's letter to the Corinthians was read in the churches of the second century. Why was that rejected by those who formed the present accepted list of writings "outside of which there is no inspiration." And were those who selected the present "canon of scripture" inspired to select he "correct" writings?

Here is an excellent website to investigate the development of "the canon of scripture":

http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon.html

[Geoffrey]

As a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church, I believe that the liturgy in all its fullness is the authoritative interpretation of the scriptures. If it's in the liturgy, then I believe that it is the teaching of the twelve Apostles. If it's not in the liturgy, then I believe that it is superfluous at best and heretical at worst.

This has interesting implications for the scripture since not all scripture is read in the liturgy. For example, the book of Revelation is never read in the liturgy. Since the liturgy represents to us the full Gospel, then the book of Revelation is superfluous to the Gospel. As such, I think it wise to pass over the book of Revelation in silence since the Church herself does so. (This does not preclude the scholarly study of the book of Revelation, of course.)

[pilgrim]

Thanks for the good questions. I get back to you shortly. I heard you ask...

1. How do we know the 66 book are God's word ( and not more or less )?
2. How do we know the documents that God gave us are without error in the original?
3. How can those who comprised the Protestant canon of scripture be right as opposed to Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox?
4. If we say the Scriptures are inerrant is there then an inerrant interpretation? Which group or tradition should we follow?

Thanks Jeff, it looks like I've opened a can of worms and it may be impossible for you to address all different perspectives. Personally, I think the question of whether the canon of scripture, or liturgy, is pre-eminent; is a separate question entirely, but I would like to clarify my questions even if you may not have time to deal with my issues.

1. How do we know the 66 book are God's word ( and not more or less )?

My interest was the status "God's Word" being attributed to the entire canon (the question of which books belong to the canon is secondary for me and of interest only when I have satisfied myself that the canon should have the status of "God's Word")

2. How do we know the documents that God gave us are without error in the original?

Err yes, "How do we know that the original autographs are infallible/without error?" BUT ALSO: seeing as the original autographs do not exist (to anyone's knowledge) what relevance is there to determining the inerrancy of those autographs? I mean, where does that get us if there is possibility that the texts we possess may be errant? I will happily give example of why this is important to me.

Thanking you in advance
John

[LLC]

Concerning point #2 in Jeff's statement of faith, John 21:25 says this "And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written down one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written." To me, scriptures are the truths of life. People have written about these truths all throughout history, and they continue to be written about today.

Jeff, you mention in point #7 that we are redeemed through the death of Christ alone. I think the death of Christ would mean life without God. So I would say that we are redeemed (liberated) when God lives first and foremost in our hearts and minds.

[Eaglesway]

1. How do we know the 66 book are God's word ( and not more or less )?

For those who do hold this, what is the justification for including the book of Esther (in which God is not mentioned at all in the Protestant version) and excluding the book of Judith? Each of the books is about a heroic woman who saved the Hebrews from being eliminated.

There were many different opinions in the early church as to which writings were to be read in the churches. 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude, and Revelation were rejected by some and were suspect by others. Paul's fellow worker Clement's letter to the Corinthians was read in the churches of the second century. Why was that rejected by those who formed the present accepted list of writings "outside of which there is no inspiration." And were those who selected the present "canon of scripture" inspired to select he "correct" writings?

Here is an excellent website to investigate the development of "the canon of scripture":

http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon.html

To me the issue is not whether the "canon" is the limit of "inspired words".. Nor is it whether or not it is inerrant to the jot and tittle.

There can be books outside the canon, take "Judith" for example, which could have been canonized but were not for some reason- maybe the very redundancy Paidon uses as an example of the similarity of Judith and Esther. This would in no way disqualify the canon. The canon is a circle within which the words are sanctified by God's choice for our foundation- if it is real. If not, then the words are not sanctified, and as such worthless for establishing authority on anything. Not worthless for inspiration or for understanding- but totally without authority concerning disagreements over doctrine and beliefs- which become truly meaningless(IMO) within a paradigm that does not recognize the legitamacy of the cannonized books.

The way I see it, folks take the tittles of inaccuracy and use them to try to invalidate broad themes about which the scriptures are very consistent. The inspiration of the scriptures can be thematically "inerrant" even if there are small instances of inaccuracy. I coined a proverb cncerning this, "God leaves the specks for people with logs in their eyes to stumble over". An inaccuracy concerning some sequence of events does not necessarily tie into any inaccuracy concerning the broader themes and that is why we have the overlay of many writers, who, when carefully examined, agree.

If we cannot depend on the broad inspiration and thematic consistency of the scriptures of the canon there ought to be an emblem by our name(pro inerrant, anti inerrant), because you just arent having the same conversation if the person you are discussing with does not regard the scriptures as at least inerrantly inspired and the canon as a legitimate preservation of a depandable core of words from YHWH through the Holy Spirit. So why waste the time. The parameters are too different to allow meaningful conversation on a broad range of topics.

I also think that the generational record from mouth to mouth in the accumulation of the scriptures has been discounted, and altho there may be no record of it, it makes inescapable sense that the testimonies of the apostles- such as Peter's record concerning Paul's epistles accorded the value as scripture- and the testimony of men such a Timothy and others may have carried weight for a hundred years after the deaths of the apostles. We do not have a lot of evidence concerning how the canon developed or how the epistles and gospels were preserved over the first 250 to 300 years.

[Paidion]

The canon is a circle within which the words are sanctified by God's choice for our foundation- if it is real.

But that is the very statement that requires justification. How do you know that "the canon" was God's choice? How do you know that those particular writings and no other are "God's choice for our foundation." The writings that were considered to be the right ones, varied in different times and at different locations. Also, as has been pointed out "Which canon?" If any one of the three, Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox, is the correct one, then the other two are not. So what basis can one affirm that a particular one of the three, is the correct one?

If not, then the words are not sanctified, and as such worthless for establishing authority on anything.

That is the position that doesn't make sense to me. Please explain why you believe that to be the case. I have heard it said, "If the Bible is not inspired by God, or without error, or (fill in the blank), we might as well throw it away; it is useless."

Histories are not useless, even though they are not inspired or flawless. They give us a basic understanding of what happened in the past.

The New Testament memoirs of Christ (now called "gospels") give us a history of the life of Christ, including what He taught to His disciples, and principles that His disciples (including His modern disciples) should follow. How can the memoirs be useless?

Paul's twelve letters to the churches are a record of what he actually wrote, and how he advised them to carry out "the law of Christ." Wouldn't this be true even if they were not inspired at all? (I think they were inspired, though not flawless).

The "Acts of the Apostles" is basically a true record of what happened in the primitive Assembly of Christ in the first century.

Thus it is my position that we can trust the historicity of these writings, that they are an authoritative account of what Jesus taught His disciples, and what the apostles taught the churches.

[maintenanceman]

Paidion said:

Histories are not useless, even though they are not inspired or flawless. They give us a basic understanding of what happened in the past.

The New Testament memoirs of Christ (now called "gospels") give us a history of the life of Christ, including what He taught to His disciples, and principles that His disciples (including His modern disciples) should follow. How can the memoirs be useless?

Paul's twelve letters to the churches are a record of what he actually wrote, and how he advised them to carry out "the law of Christ." Wouldn't this be true even if they were not inspired at all? (I think they were inspired, though not flawless).

The "Acts of the Apostles" is basically a true record of what happened in the primitive Assembly of Christ in the first century.

Thus it is my position that we can trust the historicity of these writings, that they are an authoritative account of what Jesus taught His disciples, and what the apostles taught the churches.

Well, both Luke's Gospel and Acts were merely letters of witness to a third party, if I am not mistaken.

Our belief and faith in the canon should be conditional on the work of the Holy Spirit in ones life. Many will hear the Gospels and Epistles and think they are nothing more than historic blubbering's, But Christians from that point (First century) on have been moved... And I mean incredibly moved, by the scriptures. And thus our debate and our love

Many here us these canonical passages to shape their lives and maybe the lives around them.

How many of us venomously quote scripture to drive home a point.

If we love, then Scripture (IMO) Will be useful.

Just A Thought,

[Paidion]

Many here us these canonical passages to shape their lives and maybe the lives around them.

Regarding a particular teaching, I have done that with a non-canonical writing—the letter to the Corinthians by Clement, Paul's fellow labourer. (Philippians 4:3). In mentioning his fellow workers, Paul refers only to Clement by name. The main thrust of Clement's letter is that the Corinthians should not divide because some favour deposing the overseers that God has established in favour of some envious young upstarts who want to be overseers themselves, the result being a sedition in the assembly. Clement gives examples from the Hebrew writings to show the adverse results of resisting the spiritual leaders that God has set, and also the consequences of unrighteous envy in the days of the apostles resulting in Paul and Peter's death. It helped me to realize the seriousness of opposing the overseers that God has placed in an assembly, unless they are clearly opposing God and doing wrong.

[Eaglesway]

The canon is a circle within which the words are sanctified by God's choice for our foundation- if it is real.

But that is the very statement that requires justification. How do you know that "the canon" was God's choice? How do you know that those particular writings and no other are "God's choice for our foundation." The writings that were considered to be the right ones, varied in different times and at different locations. Also, as has been pointed out "Which canon?" If any one of the three, Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox, is the correct one, then the other two are not. So what basis can one affirm that a particular one of the three, is the correct one?

If not, then the words are not sanctified, and as such worthless for establishing authority on anything.

That is the position that doesn't make sense to me. Please explain why you believe that to be the case. I have heard it said, "If the Bible is not inspired by God, or without error, or (fill in the blank), we might as well throw it away; it is useless."

Histories are not useless, even though they are not inspired or flawless. They give us a basic understanding of what happened in the past.

The New Testament memoirs of Christ (now called "gospels") give us a history of the life of Christ, including what He taught to His disciples, and principles that His disciples (including His modern disciples) should follow. How can the memoirs be useless?

Paul's twelve letters to the churches are a record of what he actually wrote, and how he advised them to carry out "the law of Christ." Wouldn't this be true even if they were not inspired at all? (I think they were inspired, though not flawless).

The "Acts of the Apostles" is basically a true record of what happened in the primitive Assembly of Christ in the first century.

Thus it is my position that we can trust the historicity of these writings, that they are an authoritative account of what Jesus taught His disciples, and what the apostles taught the churches.

When I say- if it is real, I am establishing(in my own mind lol) 2 paradigms. The statement needs to be justified- yes, in every mind....for itself. We (generic- Christians) talk about the Holy Spirit a lot, but we disgree widely upon His abilities. Jesus says one of those abilities is to teach us what is true. To explain and integrate the context of the word of God as the truth in His priorities.

There is a point were I have to say I believe the canon was the work of the Holy Spirit. I don't believe the canon excludes the possibility of other holy writings in existence. I just believe it is a complete source material. It lacks nothing in its full scope for establishing what is true, as a record of the Holy Spirit working through men to provide the truths of the gospel and the history of the Lampstand- the nation Israel. I dont think it is flawless- I think it is perfect, whole, sufficient and supernatural.

As oracles, quick and active, the limitations to understanding are in us, not in them.

As to why I believe it is pointless to debate doctrine with someone who does not except the authority of the canon of scripture- it is because their opinion and philosophy and perspective is their only authority in the final analysis. There is no need for them to integrate the scriptures in their truth....except when they feel like it. You cannot bring them to the common ground to be instructed- them by you ar you by them because there is no common authority with which to moderate the discussion, no arbiter, no compass with which to establish true north.

To me, it is a double standard, based in intellectual convenience.

The canon is a circle within which the words and thoughts are sanctified and trustworthy- a sufficient resource for the Holy Spirit to confirm in the words of the Messiah and the prophets and the apostles the things we believe because they ARE of God- if it is real, that is what it is.

I have done the research. I have studied the flaws and the specks that empower the naysayers. I have studied fairly comprehensively....but in the end I must say that when I was first saved, the Holy Spirit sowed in me- before I ever met another Christian for fellowship or went into a church to receive any corruption of my faith- a full assurance in the inspiration and authority of the written word as we have it. Not in the the jots and tittles, but in the themes and truths. Whatever flaws there are, there is no other writing available that exceeds the revelation held within it, and as it is(when properly translated and understood contextually)- it fulfills these requirements.

Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture comes from the prophet’s own interpretation. 21For no prophecy was ever brought about through human initiative, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. 2 Pet 1

You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. 2 Tim 3

Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'" Mt 4

As a living oracle the scriptures are like a multi level mozaic of endless depth, and the truths hidden between the lines are spiritually apprehended, and confirmed through fellowship among the spiritual. Jesus used "It is written" as sword and scepter, because He knew what it was and is in the spiritual realm.

I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling, 4 and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.

6 Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away; 7 but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory; 8 the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory; 9 but just as it is written,

“Things which eye has not seen and ear has not heard,
And which have not entered the heart of man,
All that God has prepared for those who love Him.”

10 For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. 11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, 13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.


Everyone who is spiritual accepts the authority of the scripture. Those who stand around the outer perimeters examining it for "flawlessness" have missed the point and those who use it in the letter as a blunt instrument have never opened the seals upon it.

Such confidence we have through Christ toward God. 5 Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God, 6 who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

7 But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was, 8 how will the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory? 9 For if the ministry of condemnation has glory, much more does the ministry of righteousness abound in glory. 10 For indeed what had glory, in this case has no glory because of the glory that surpasses it. 11 For if that which fades away was with glory, much more that which remains is in glory.

12 Therefore having such a hope, we use great boldness in our speech, 13 and are not like Moses, who used to put a veil over his face so that the sons of Israel would not look intently at the end of what was fading away. 14 But their minds were hardened; for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ. 15 But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart; 16 but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. 18 But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.

The veil is taken away "in Christ", "in the Spirit". Seeing through the curtains is a function of the Holy Spirit teaching the deeper context and integrity and revelation hidden within the scriptures. These are all "my opinions"- not meant to offend anyone.

For this reason I too, having heard of the faith in the Lord Jesus which exists among you and your love for all the saints, 16 do not cease giving thanks for you, while making mention of you in my prayers; 17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of Him. 18 I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened, so that you will know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, 19 and what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward us who believe. These are in accordance with the working of the strength of His might 20 which He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. 22 And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, 23 which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.

To me the core of scripture is to reveal who He is and who, and what, we are, as the people of God and members of one another, and how to receive the fulness of what He has called us to be and walk in it together- to reveal the kingdom of God on earth- not in words only, but in the full reality of the Spirit with power and glory. To become an acceptable offering upon which He will visit His Spirit as a testimony....

"And the word of the Lord grew and multiplied and great grace was upon them all..."

[Dandelion]

Amen, EW.

23Jesus replied, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make Our home with him. 24Whoever does not love Me does not keep My words. The word that you hear is not My own, but it is from the Father who sent Me.

25All this I have spoken to you while I am still with you. 26But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have told you.
John 14: 23-26

D.

[Paidion]

I carefully read your posts, Eaglesway and Dandelion. But I fail to see how the indwelling spirit of God has shown anyone that a particular list of writings is the unique canon, outside of which there is no inspiration. And neither one of you has yet answered my question, "Which canon?— Orthodox, Catholic, or Protestant?

Everyone who is spiritual accepts the authority of the scripture.

Again, "Which scripture? Which Bible?" And why? Does the Spirit lead some to accept the Protestant Bible, others to accept the Catholic Bible, and still others to accept the Orthodox Bible?

I must say that when I was first saved, the Holy Spirit sowed in me- before I ever met another Christian for fellowship or went into a church to receive any corruption of my faith- a full assurance in the inspiration and authority of the written word as we have it.

As we have it? We have it in dozens of translations. Which translation is inspired and authoritative? The original manuscripts do not exist.

[Dandelion]

God sees our hearts and our motives. Humans see only the results of what we are motivated to do.

We cannot see what is in the hearts of those who either translated the Bible, or of those who read these translations.

In light of UR, I tend to want to hold onto the Catholic Bible, though I, myself, left the RC Church 13 years ago.

I say this, because the Catholic Bible has the Book of Macabees, which says to pray for the dead, which helps to confirm, for me, at least, that there is more to come, in the way of reconciliation, after we die. The Protestant Bibles carefully eliminated this, due to the abuse of indulgences, to a large degree. Indulgences were a means of the Catholic Church controlling its members and asking for huge amounts of money from poor peasants. I don't know the Orthodox Bible, so I cannot speak on that. I don't think that what is eliminated, however, destroys the Story of Salvation, that is told in all Bibles.

However, I don't know if that is important, as, I believe that must be left to the Holy Spirit, as well.

In God's time and in His purpose, I think we must trust that what needs to be revealed will be, despite our humanly ways of going astray and not following the good deeds we are supposed to be doing. Or perhaps, it is just due, not to our fallen, sinful selves, but merely to innocent error.

The point is, God knows, and He will do what is necessary. Ultimately, He is in charge.

The Holy Spirit,in other words, is capable of delivering what needs to be presented, as well as inspiring the writings. This is trusting in God, for me. And, as in all things, that sometimes has to just be enough for us.

As I believe it is extremely important to study the Bible, and use our intellect, which is God-given, I also believe we are still and all, extremely limited in discerning many things. Intellect cannot come close to understanding all things on a spiritual level, nor can we know all God's ways, by using it, hard as we try.

1 Corinthians 2:11
For who knows a person's thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.

D.

[Paidion]

The following is for informational purposes only:

It is only in the Old Testament, that the writings vary between the Protestant canon, the Catholic canon, and the Orthodox canon.

The Orthodox Old Testament contains 3rd Maccabees, whereas the RC contains only 1st and 2nd Maccabees.
The Orthodox contains Psalm 151, whereas the other two don't.
Orthodox 2nd Ezra = RC 1st Esdras = Prot Ezra
Orthodox 1st Ezra is a later writing (about 150 BC) containing only 9 chapters. The other two do not contain it.
Orthodox Nehemiah = RC 2nd Esdras = Prot Nehemiah
Orthodox 2 Chronicles includes the Prayer of Manasseh
Orthodox contains "Lamentation of Jeremiah" and "Epistle of Jeremiah" whereas the other two don't.
In the Orthodox, the History of Suzanna is at the beginning of Daniel, and Bel and the Serpent (or dragon) at the end.

This is but a partial list of the differences between the three Bibles. There are also a number of writings found in both the Orthodox and RC Old Testaments which are absent from the Protestant OT.

I obtained my information by comparing the Orthodox Study Bible with the RC Douay.

Here is a site I discovered afterward, that gives a more thorough comparison, and differs a bit from that which I provided above:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon2.html

If you go to the site, please scroll down to compare what the three canons do with the deuterocanonical books (called by Protestants "the Apocrypha").

[maintenanceman]

The following is for informational purposes only:

It is only in the Old Testament, that the writings vary between the Protestant canon, the Catholic canon, and the Orthodox canon.

The Orthodox Old Testament contains 3rd Maccabees, whereas the RC contains only 1st and 2nd Maccabees.
The Orthodox contains Psalm 151, whereas the other two don't.
Orthodox 2nd Ezra = RC 1st Esdras = Prot Ezra
Orthodox 1st Ezra is a later writing (about 150 BC) containing only 9 chapters. The other two do not contain it.
Orthodox Nehemiah = RC 2nd Esdras = Prot Nehemiah
Orthodox 2 Chronicles includes the Prayer of Manasseh
Orthodox contains "Lamentation of Jeremiah" and "Epistle of Jeremiah" whereas the other two don't.
In the Orthodox, the History of Suzanna is at the beginning of Daniel, and Bel and the Serpent (or dragon) at the end.

This is but a partial list of the differences between the three Bibles. There are also a number of writings found in both the Orthodox and RC Old Testaments which are absent from the Protestant OT.

I obtained my information by comparing the Orthodox Study Bible with the RC Douay.

Here is a site I discovered afterward, that gives a more thorough comparison, and differs a bit from that which I provided above:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon2.html

If you go to the site, please scroll down to compare what the three canons do with the deuterocanonical books (called by Protestants "the Apocrypha").

So if your children or grandchildren asked you what to search and study, as to what God wants you to know from all the different canons and writings and versions and all that might be outside what orthodoxy would consider relevant, what would you tell them?

Your input will be considered valuable

Thanks

Chad

[Paidion]

My children and grandchildren would never ask that question, for I've never taught them that God has designed a canon or canons to provide us with what He want us to know.

I have taught my children that God has revealed Himself in His only-begotten Son, who became human, and who taught His followers how to live, as recorded in Matthew 5, 6, and 7, and taught a great crowd of His followers as well as a wider crowd how to live as recorded in Luke 6:17 to the end. Also, that the apostles (having been disciples of Christ) revealed the will of God through their letters to the churches and their general letters which are recorded, and that the four memoirs of Christ and the letters of the apostles are reliable accounts of what Jesus and His disciples taught—not because they are "the word of God" due to being part of a canon which man has declared infallible—but because they are historical documents. There is no valid reason to doubt their historicity.

Also that the validity of Christ's teachings can be verified through practising them, and that the apostolic teaching concerning a personal relationship with Christ can be verified by experience.

[maintenanceman]

My children and grandchildren would never ask that question, for I've never taught them that God has designed a canon or canons to provide us with what He want us to know.

I have taught my children that God has revealed Himself in His only-begotten Son, who became human, and who taught His followers how to live, as recorded in Matthew 5, 6, and 7, and taught a great crowd of His followers as well as a wider crowd how to live as recorded in Luke 6:17 to the end. Also, that the apostles (having been disciples of Christ) revealed the will of God through their letters to the churches and their general letters which are recorded, and that the four memoirs of Christ and the letters of the apostles are reliable accounts of what Jesus and His disciples taught—not because they are "the word of God" due to being part of a canon which man has declared infallible—but because they are historical documents. There is no valid reason to doubt their historicity.

Also that the validity of Christ's teachings can be verified through practising them, and that the apostolic teaching concerning a personal relationship with Christ can be verified by experience.

That is a Great testimony Paidion. Thank you for sharing it.

[DaveB]

Some words along these lines, from Dallas Willard in The Divine Conspiracy (I am thoroughly enjoying this book btw):

"....my assumptions about the Bible: on its human side, I assume that it was produced and preserved by competent human beings who were at least as intelligent and devout as we are today. I assume that they were quite capable of accurately interpreting their own experience and of objectively presenting what they heard and experienced in the language of their historical community, which today we can understand with due diligence.

On the divine side, I assume that God has been willing and competent to arrange for the Bible, including its record of Jesus, to emerge and be preserved in ways that will secure His purposes for it among human beings worldwide. ...
..I assume that He would not and did not leave His message to humankind in a form that can only be understood by a handful of late twentieth-century professional scholars, who cannot even agree among themselves on the theories that they assume to determine what the message is."

(op. cit. Page xiv)

I think those are pretty sound assumptions.

And from Channing's work:
"We answer again, that, if God be infinitely wise, he cannot sport with the understandings of his creatures. A wise teacher discovers his wisdom in adapting himself to the capacities of his pupils, not in perplexing them with what is unintelligible, not in distressing them with apparent contradictions, not in filling them with a skeptical distrust of their own powers. An infinitely wise teacher, who knows the precise extent of our minds, and the best method of enlightening them, will surpass all other instructors in bringing down truth to our apprehension, and in showing its loveliness and harmony. We ought, indeed, to expect occasional obscurity in such a book as the Bible, which was written for past and future ages, as well as for the present. But God's wisdom is a pledge, that whatever is necessary for US, and necessary for salvation, is revealed too plainly to be mistaken, and too consistently to be questioned, by a sound and upright mind. It is not the mark of wisdom, to use an unintelligible phraseology, to communicate what is above our capacities, to confuse and unsettle the intellect by appearances of contradiction. We honor our Heavenly Teacher too much to ascribe to him such a revelation. A revelation is a gift of light. It cannot thicken our darkness, and multiply our perplexities."

Again, this makes sense to me as well.

<Channing - the man is a treasure-house of wisdom and Christian insight>

[[email protected]]

Sorry for the delay in my answers to the recent discussion questions. Here are my thoughts...

1. How do we know the 66 book are God's word ( and not more or less )?

We do not know and cannot know this absolutely or in an infallible way. It is possible that an inspired Scripture has been lost or an uninspired writing inserted. Yet is it probable? While no human list of Bible books can claim to be infallible I none the less trust that God is supervising the goal that His word will be available to truth seekers. Yet some questions do remain. For example Psalm 151… is it in or out? So as Christians seek answers to these questions it is essential to note that documents cannot be made to be Scripture by the declaration of any human authority, not even the church. Instead the effort of the church and faithful Christians is to find reason to recognize the inherent nature of particular documents as Scripture from God. Our saying that a document is Scripture does not make it so! Instead we have the hard work of study and research to find reason to recognize documents as Scripture through historical studies, textual criticism, internal consistency, etc. Furthermore, I agree with those who also conclude that inspired words ceased after the New Testament era based on 1 Corinthians 13:8 and Revelation 22:18-19. So the book of Mormon is not inspired, nor does it come close to sharing the same quality as the Christian Scriptures, nor liturgies and commentaries. As for the Deuterocanonical and Apocryphal books found in some canonical lists I am not persuaded that they are inspired for various reasons and so I reference the 66 books in the protestant list in my proposed statement of faith. And so my statement stands, “I believe that the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments are the unique, inerrant, inspired Word of God in the original autographs, and the final authority in all matters of faith and conduct, 2 Tim 3:16.” Is my statement infallible? Hardly, only God’s word is infallible. This is just my statement of belief .

2. How do we know the documents that God gave us are without error in the original?

The Christian Scriptures are documents of a special nature distinct from other human writings as explained in 2 Timothy 3:16. So we know that God has given us special written communication in that He ‘breathed’ his message through select people resulting in the Christian Scriptures. The Bible also says of itself that God’s Word is without flaw in Proverbs 30:5. However, it should be noted that no where does the Scripture extend the description of ‘God-breathed’ and ‘flawless’ to translations and copies of the original or any other human writing for that matter. And so God’s Word is inerrant in the original autograph, but not in the transcription or translation. Someone noted above that we no longer have the original autographs. Perhaps that is a good thing because the document would surely be worshiped and paraded around museums by the unbelieving. Yet how can we then know that the Bible we have in front of us can be trusted? Truth seekers need to understand that there is an inerrant document from God no longer available to us and that God himself, no doubt, has taken care to use faithful men and women to carry the message forward through their transcription and translation, yet not without error. For example, Ephesians 3:1 seems to be a false start of Ephesians 3:14 perhaps by a very early scribe since we have no earlier manuscript without the error. Yet for myself I am confident that the Ephesians 3:1 misstep is not in the original autograph. So why would God allow the original infallible autographs to be lost? Well we can be confident that the originals are perfect because God cannot do anything imperfectly. And if he breathed these documents they are perfect as he says in Proverbs 30:5. So the originals are infallible. Furthermore, even in ordaining the fall God’s perfection is not impugned or without purpose! My thought is that for the further display of grace and also so that He is worshiped and not the original autographs He has allowed the original autographs to be lost, leaving us with transcriptions and translations that are short of perfect. Yet the Holy Spirit is supervising this effort helping truth seekers to know the truth as explained in 1 John 2:27, even without the original autographs in our possession.

3. How can those who comprised the Protestant canon of scripture be right as opposed to Roman Catholic or
Eastern Orthodox?

There is no list of Bible books that can claim to be infallible, Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox. Canonization does not make a particular document to be Scripture! Some hold that church authority in canonizing a particular document is what then makes it God’s word. No so. Instead the authority, value, and title of Scripture for the original autographs ‘breathed’ by the Holy Spirit is instead inherent because the documents are from God himself. Canonization properly understood then is the effort of the church and faithful Christians to recognize which documents are in fact the inspired documents breathed from God. Yet the effort to recognize which documents are in fact Scripture is also not infallible, and as one might expect in our fallen world we have conflicting opinions. However, the infallible list of Scripture is known by God.

4. If we say the Scriptures are inerrant is there then an inerrant interpretation? Which group or tradition should we follow?

Yes, there is most certainly an inerrant interpretation of the Bible! This is an essential point, for many supposed truth seekers will dodge the truth and the hard work to seek the truth by complaining that there are so many different interpretations that one cannot really conclude anything certain about the Bible’s message. I meet with this lame excuse all the time. Yet believers know that the Bible was written to communicate a certain message of God’s love for mankind! Since the Scriptures are God-breathed, 2 Timothy 3:16, we know that God himself penned his inerrant message, Proverbs 30:5, through select people as his chosen instruments who He inspired by the Holy Spirit. So God himself can claim the inerrant interpretation of the Bible! He wrote to communicate meaning which He certainly knows infallibly! And most amazingly God then anoints us with an understanding of His Word through the Holy Spirit, 1 John 2:15. So Christians can boldly assert to know truth from God through the Bible. Yet even so no human individual or organization can claim to hold an infallible interpretation for we remain fallible and God remains infallible. So we are also reminded of the value of humility for if two people or two churches disagree on their interpretation, one or both of them is wrong, though God's inspired Word is never wrong.

Those are my thoughts on the question.

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

A well thought out exposition, to some difficult questions, Jeff. And I would also say, they would be "politically correct", in most theological circles.

[[email protected]]

ouch.