After Inerrancy: Evangelicals and the Bible in a Postmodern Age, Part 2

Martin,

You need to be a little careful when you talk about “officially received”. This is possibly one of the largest misunderstandings Protestants have of Catholicism. Protestant, especially Evangelical writers, tend to assert that a doctrine is “invented” by Rome every time some decision is made at an Ecumenical Council. This is not very accurate. Certainly, the formalized formula is created when such a decision is made, but not the actual concept. The Holy See works on a “Don’t Challenge, Don’t Declare” policy, which in basic form is a “there is no need to state the obvious” policy.

If there is only one version of a doctrine or practice, the Papacy does not bother to define it. It only defines doctrines when there are several competing versions of the same doctrine. So it only bothered to recognize the Apocrypha when Martin Luther challenged the canonicity of those books.

I would ask Laird Harris about what change occurred in 400 AD then, or if he has simply misinterpreted the Church Fathers. For instance, St Athanasius did mention that these texts were “to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness”.

Martin, Raphael, and others who might be interested:

Here is a site which shows how differently “Bible”, “Church”, etc. are conceived in the Greek Orthodox tradition:

http://www.serfes.org/orthodox/scripturesinthechurch.htm

And here is an interesting table of the different canons of Scripture in the different Christian Churches (the Ethiopian is the coolest!):

http://www.bombaxo.com/canonchart.html

I’m done commenting here, so I’m not presenting this material for debate, but merely for further information, in case the debate here over canon, and over “Church vs. Scripture” stimulated anyone’s interest in traditions beyond the Protestant.

Raphael,  The fact that Athanasius may have urged the reading of the Apocrypha in the churches is not the same thing as saying that he regarded those books as having the same “inspired” status as “the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings” which were the only books the early church fathers and the Jews themselves regarded as divinely inspired and canonical.  Josephus, for example, excluded the Apocrypha from those books which the Jews themselves regarded as canonical. His list is in accord with the Talmudic tradition which recognizes the same books as inspired which are in the Protestant Old Testament.  Here is a quote from the Talmud:  “With the death of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, the latter prophets, the Holy Spirit ceased out of Israel” (that is to say, there were no further prophetic writings).    Moreover, Harris points out that Augustine, the only church father who argued in favor of recognizing the Apocrypha as canonical, believed in a two-level status of the canon, with the Apocrypha occupying the lower level.  In support of that contention, he gives the following quote from Augustine: (continued)

“The account of the times since the restoration of the Temple is not found in the Holy Scriptures which are called canonical, but in others, among which are also the books of the Maccabees, which the Jews do not, but which the Church does, esteem canonical on account of the violent and extraordinary sufferings of certain martyrs.”  Elsewhere Augustine says that these books are not on the same level with the divinely “inspired” books which the Jews received as Scripture, but occupy a lower level of authority:  “They are not found in the canon which the people of God received, because it is one thing to be able to write as men with the diligence of historians, and another as prophets with divine inspiration; the former pertained to the increase of knowledge; the latter to authority in religion, in which authority the canon is kept.”  Is it any wonder that Jerome disputed with Augustine over the latter’s claims of canonicity for the Apocrypha?  How can books be canonical which are not “of divine inspiration”?  Does God speak on two levels?  It is understandable, therefore, why the Reformers rejected the Apocrypha as canonical (although Luther translated the Apocrypha).

Rich, thank you very much for the encouraging words. I sure will delve into the works of Sorensen and C.S. Lewis (I have read “Miracles” already). I also read Tony Campolo’s “A reasonable faith”. But I was wandering as to where I could get some direct responses to my direct questions on post #17430. Especially the story of Paul which I find very hard to believe: no personal knowing of Jesus, no expounding of the Master’s teachings or deeds, almost no quotes, focusing on His death only and not on His life, etc. I have heard some say that Paul actually met Jesus, in a special way on the road to Damascus, but still there were no witnesses and his fellow travelers didn’t “see” anything, so basically we have Paul’s word alone. I hope you see my point. I am also hoping to find some answers in this blog, especially from fellow literalist (or inerrantist as they are called here) believers. 
Thanks in advance,

The NT says that God previously let the punishment for sins go unpunished!  Which means that all the violence in the OT was actually God’s mercy.  And of course complete obliteration of women and children would have been considered a mercy killing (there was no taxes back then to pay for huge prisons or enough food to feed all those extra people, they would have put too big a strain on the food supply) and an effective means of punishment to prevent other nations to get that depraved.  Of course when there was a shortage of women which would prevent Israel from growing then it was permissable to allow them to take women

The NT also mentions nothing about self-defense.  Plus how would you equally love the oppressed and the oppressor?? Its one thing to love a persecutor which is what Jesus is referring to, and another to turn the cheek to one who is trying o kill your family!

Filip:

As I said above, I’m abandoning this thread, but there is a new thread, with the same title as this one, numbered “Part 3”, so you may want to re-address your questions there.  I think you will get a wider audience for them there, as I think only two or three others are still reading this thread.

I sense that the question of Paul’s relationship to the life and teaching of Jesus is an important one for you.  It’s an important one for me as well.  I don’t think the question can be addressed adequately by extreme forms of inerrantism and by the notion of canon held by some here.  I think one has to first study the Gospels very carefully, and then study Paul, but, at least initially, keep the two separate.  Then, once one has a handle on each, one can attempt the delicate task of connecting them.  The usual evangelical approach is the opposite:  to lump everything together, and explain a book by one writer with ideas from another.  This works for undiscerning readers, but you appear to be a more discerning reader.  That’s why I recommended reading more deeply in the Christian tradition; I don’t think the evangelical writings of the last century will satisfy you.  But try asking others on the other thread.

Filip,
Your best resource for studying about Paul is the New Testament itself, and a good place to start is the book of Acts (which was written by Luke, a personal companion of Paul on some of his missionary journeys, as well as the author of the third gospel) and the epistle to the Galatians.  Paul’s apostolicity was challenged in the first century for the very reasons you have mentioned, and in the first two chapters of Galatians, he gives something of a personal defense of his apostolic authority. He points out that his calling as an apostle of Christ was recognized by the apostles in Jerusalem, who affirmed that he preached the same essential gospel as themselves (Galatians 2:6-10).  Some believe that Galatians is the earliest NT writing, so this would be the earliest witness available concerning Paul and his relationship to the other apostles.  Paul’s authority was such that even rebuked Peter for his hypocrisy in denying the truth of the gospel by his actions, when he withdrew temporarily from fellowship with Gentile believers (continued).

In his second epistle to the Corinthians, Paul again defends his apostolic authority against all naysayers by pointing to the miraculous signs he demonstrated in Corinth, his tireless labors for the gospel of Christ despite the most intense persecution from his fellow Jews and from pagan Gentiles, as well as the life-transforming power of the gospel that he preached (which the Corinthians themselves had personally experienced).  He tells the Corinthians that they themselves were his “letter of recommendation” to them, since they had come to know Christ through his ministry.  Givem the astounding claims that Paul made about himself, his encounter with Christ on the road to Damascus, the calling he received, etc., one can only conclude one of three things about Paul; either (1)  he was a deliberate deceiver, and made up the whole story about his encounter with Christ in order to obtain some wordly gain—but what possible gain could he obtain?  He gave up everything he had to become a Christian—his reputation with the Jews, his earthly safety and security, etc.;  or (continued)

(2) he was a raving madman, who lost his marbles and started having fairly regular hallucinations about Christ appearing to him throughout the latter years of his life, in which case his entire ministry, teachings, etc., are the fruit of mental illness; or (3)  he was exactly who he claimed to be, a former viscious persecutor of the church, who at one time murdered, imprisoned, and hounded Christians relentlessly for their faith, until he was gloriously converted on the road to Damascus through a personal encounter with Jesus Christ, who appeared to Paul and called him as an apostle.  This third conclusion is the only one which makes sense.  Just read 1 Corinthians 13—indeed, read all the epistles and ask yourself if these are the writings of a madman or a deceiver.  They are not.  Ultimately, therefore, the Spirit of God testifies with our own spirit to confirm the truth of the gospel Paul preached, and the authenticity of Paul himself as a genuine, Christ-called apostle.  In your studies, never confuse scholarship with knowledge.  You don’t have to be a scholar to know the truth about these things.  (continued)

Being a scholar depends on how much you read; knowing the truth depends not on how much, but on what, you read.  If you read things that have been directly inspired by God, you can know the truth that what you are reading is from God by the witness of His Holy Spirit.  The apostle John reminded the Christians at Ephesus that it is the Holy Spirit who gives us the assurance of the truth that is from God, not the number of books we have read.  We may become SCHOLARS through reading a mountain of books, but we become KNOWERS through the ministry of the Spirit to our hearts.  Says John:  “But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you KNOW the truth. I do not write to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it and because no lie is from the truth. . .See that what you heard from the beginning remains in you.  If it does, you also will remain in the Father and the Son. . .The anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you.  But as his anointing teaches you all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit- just as it has taught you, remain in him.”  Read Paul, and God himself will assure you of Paul’s apostleship, by the Spirit.

Martin,

Amen!

@Martin

Amen! Praise God!!!!!!!

God wants us to love our enemies and in this way become like Him as when He gave His only Son to suffer and die in the place of His enemies so that He could save them and give them eternal life with eternal pleasure and happiness.  However, all men are enemies of God before He saves them, and He is not obligated to love and save any of His enemies.  He is free to be gracious to whom He will, and none are deserving of His grace.  He would be perfectly just to destroy the whole planet of sin infected evil humans for all of their sins against Him on a daily basis, as He did when He destroyed the ancient world with the flood, graciously sparing Noah and His family because it was His will to do so and not because Noah did not also deserve to perish in his sins.  Someday God will return to save some (many are called, few are chosen), and the rest will be judged and eternally punished.  They will receive perfect justice from a perfectly just God for all of their sins against Him.  God was perfectly just to destroy Jericho, and to use whoever He chose to accomplish His judgment.  As for the children who were slaughtered, evil and corrupt people (all of us by nature) give birth to sin infected children and God is not obligated to save any.