Scripture: the Communication of God’s Word

Hi g_1933,

You wrote, "I must tell you that I have never had anyone other than the Holy Spirit of God translate for me. When I have a problem with a scripture I pray about it and God has always supplied an answer. Trusting God IS simplistic and I rejoice in that."

Are you a Mormon missionary?

The reason I ask is because what you have just said is exactly what they will tell you. You almost represented a portion of a conversation I had with two LDS missionaries this past summer when in London, Ontario.

It's interesting though how the same Holy Spirit has lead you and I to contrary conclusions regarding Luke 22:19; it seems like God apparently does hold the quality of duplicity. Or maybe not? Perhaps the Historical-Critical Method and authentic Christian Tradition are both necessary in order to ascertain the literal sense of Scripture. Perhaps your suggestion is possibly naive and simplistic?

Blessings,

Carson

 

Hi Colin, you wrote, "I know this sounds simplistic, but Jesus said Daniel spoke the words of Daniel. If Daniel didn't write his book, then Jesus is lying."

If someone else wrote Daniel, that does not mean that the author did not faithfully record what Daniel had spoken.

You wrote, "history is very important [to the Jews]."

I did not deny that history was important for the Jews (why else would we have the Torah: b're-sheet/Genesis, sh'mot/Exodus, vayikra/Leviticus, b'midbar/Numbers, and d'varim/Deuteronomy as well as the K'tubim, esp. Y'hoshua/Joshua, shofetim/Judges, sh'muel/1&2Samuel, and mal'khim/1&2Kings). I wrote that "[t]heir worldview was not rational, chronological, and critical; it was mythic and poetic." This accounts for why the Gospels are arranged in different orders among the Synoptics. It also accounts for the difficulty that post-Enlightenment minds find with Genesis. The writer of Genesis proposed the who, what, and why of Creation in mythical/poetic language without ever intending to portray the critical, scientific, chronological, rational "how" of Creation.

Regarding 2 Peter, in spite of its heavy stress on Petrine authorship, 2 Pet is nowhere mentioned in the second century. The Apologists, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Clement of Alexandria, and the Muratorian Canon are completely silent about it.

Its first attestation is in Origen, but according to him the letter is contested. Eusebius lists it among the apocrypha. Even down to the fourth century 2 Peter was largely unknown or not recognized as canonical.

Yet, you accept 2 Peter as canonical. You received the Bible from the Catholic Church. Catholic bishops decided to include 2 Peter in the canon of the New Testament and it has been a part of the Church's canon ever since. With the advent of Protestantism, the canon is retained (based as it is on the authority of the bishops), and thus, you regard 2 Peter as Scripture.

If scholarship shows us that, most likely, it wasn't Peter who wrote 2 Peter, would you be willing to disregard it as Scripture? Or do you accept this particular tradition of the Catholic Church too much to be disregarded?

I have not studied the authorship of the TaNaK enough to have formed an informed opinion regarding Mosaic authorship. Regarding excommunication, it is a very Biblical concept (e.g. Gal 1:5-8), and I believe that it is a good idea not to stray from the topic of the thread.

God bless,

Carson

[ November 09, 2002, 01:11 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Hi Curtis,

You wrote, "I accept 2 Peter as scripture simply because it's right after 1 Peter in my KJV. I completely trust that version, I stake my very salvation upon the words I have read between it's covers. Sound's narrow minded, but that's how much I trust God in preserving his word for me."

All I can say is "Wow". What you have just said, Curtis, represents fundamentalism at its core, and it's a system that I find quite antithetical to the God-given faculty of reason.

your bro in Christ,

Carson

 

Hi Swaimj,

You are welcome, and thank you for finding my paper interesting and your commendation.

You asked, "Is the one single deposit scripture, tradition, or both? I was not sure what you meant."

The single deposit is everything that has been revealed in Jesus Christ, Who is God's final Word to mankind. Jesus did not come to Earth and compose a New Testament. He lived, formed a faith community with his life, truth, and authority, died, was buried, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven. Everything about Jesus Christ - his life, deeds, words, etc. - comprise the deposit and it is handed on within the Church as (1) Tradition and (2) as Scripture (which itself was Tradition before it was written down according to form criticism).

You commented, "B.B. Warfield did not hold to a dictation theory of inspiration, in fact, he refuted such a theory."

I apologize for the ambiguity in my paper on this particular issue.

I further quote Keating for the context of my quote, "Fundamentalists regard the Bible as the keystone of their faith. Their understanding of inspiration and inerrancy comes from Benjamin Warfield's notion of plenary-verbal inspiration, meaning that in the autographs all of the Bible is inspired and the inspiration extends not just to the message God wished to convey, but to the very words chosen by the sacred writers. For many fundamentalists, particularly those not of an intellectual bent, this reduces the dictation theory of inspiration - the human authors were mere stenographers, their only task being to record what the Voice said. This of course, implies not only a Bible free from error, which is also the orthodox Catholic position, but also a Bible free from abiguity.."

As you are well aware, there are numerous theories of Biblical inspiration and the dictation theory is only one of these that presents the far right fundamentalist; it is not descriptive of the position held by all fundamentalists.

The paper I presented contrasts two schools: 1. The school that accepts the Historical-Critical methods and 2. The school that does not accept these methods. "Biblical Fundamentalism" is a catch-all term that describes the latter school. It is a subdivision of evangelicals.

Regardless of whether one holds to the Dictation Theory of Inspiration, if one fails to acknowledge that the Word of God has been phrased in human language and distinct literary genres, if one neglects to take into account styles of human thought and the fact that the Biblical texts express language that covers long periods of time in multifarious historical situations, if one tends to regard as historical everything that is narrated in the past tense without respect for what may have been expressed primarily in symbolic or figurative language - all of these qualities of Scripture require historical criticism - then such a person would be a Biblical Fundamentalist.

It was a reaction against the assault of rationalist criticism initially launched by German scholars whose intent was to undermine the Christian belief in the inerrancy of the Bible. Some Protestant denominations sought refuge in a semantic literalism that appeared to shelter the Bible from this onslaught from agnostic scholars. It engages in a rigid literalism that creates a false tension between the truth of divine revelation and scientific truth.

You wrote, "Carson, the "analogy of faith" is the allegorical method.

No, this is not what I mean by the "analogy of faith". I am using the term as used within the context of the Catholic Tradition, as it is spelled out in the Catechism of the Catholic Church in paragraph 114:

"By 'analogy of faith' we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation."

You wrote, "The Roman Catholic Church's problem is that much of Church tradition cannot be found in the scripture if the literal method us used exclusively. To defend itself in these areas, the Church reserves the right to allegorize the scriptures to make them fit their unbiblical traditions.

You are imputing the doctrine of Sola Scriptura onto the Catholic Church. The Church does not claim that her Sacred Tradition is found in the Scripture. It is a distinct transmission of the deposit of divine revelation.

Dei Verbum, the Church's Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, promulgated at the Second Vatican Council, summarizes this doctrine that the Christian Church has practiced for nearly 2,000 years now:

"Hence there exists a close connection and communication between Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence."

As a Christian, I am not beholden to demonstrate every article of my faith from the Old or New Testaments. Like the first Christians, I am beholden to hold to the faith of God's family, which is a sacred Temple, built upon the foundation of Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit.

God bless,

Carson

[ November 10, 2002, 02:41 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Hi Blackbird,

You wrote, "Scripture's proper home ain't in the bosom of the Catholic church"

Scripture is a collection of writings that were created in and for a living faith community. The same household of faith that existed at Pentecost exists today. To take Scripture from the community is like ripping a fetus from her mother's room and handing her to any individual who "wants a baby".

You wrote, "Scripture's proper home is in the heart of the believer"

And the believer's proper home is the household of God, the covenant family established in the blood of Jesus Christ. It is this household, which is "the pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Tim 3:15)

You wrote, "When you die--do you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that you will go to heaven??"

If I were to die at this moment, I can tell you that I have a moral assurance that I will go to heaven because I stand in the grace of my Saviour, Jesus Christ. If I were to die tomorrow, I can tell you that if I do not separate myself from Christ (Gal 5:4), if I do not continue in His goodness(Rom 11:22), if become entagled again in the pollutions of the world (2 Pet 2:20f), if I am not moved away from the hope of the Gospel (Col 1:22f), if I do not crucify the Son of God again for myself (Heb 6:4-6), if my name is not blot out from the Book of Life (Rev 3:5), if I do not commit a deadly sin willingly (Heb 10:26f), if I do not hold steadfast to the end (Heb 3:14), then I will not "go to heaven".

I also think that this is not the place to pursue this topic. This thread is devoted to Sacred Scripture as the communication of God's Word.

You asked, "Let me ask you to ask the Holy Spirit Am I born-again?"

I've already asked him when I renewed my baptismal vows numerous times. I am truly born from above. I experience the Holy Spirit every day of my life in deep prayer. The Spirit of God is very alive in my life.

The term "born again" is actually a misconception that Nicodemus had in John 3. Jesus meant "born from above", and Nicodemus, a man of the flesh, did not understand Jesus.

I "washed" my robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb (Rev 7:14), my heart has been "sprinkled clean" from an evil conscience and my body "washed with pure water" (Heb 10:22), I have been "washed", sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God (1 Cor 6:11), I have been "cleansed" by the "washing of water" with the word (Eph 5:26), and I have been born of "water and the Spirit" (John 3:5).

I don't think that we should pursue this subject on this thread, which is devoted to Sacred Scripture as the communication of God's Word.

Hi g_1933,

You wrote, "2Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"

Have you read this verse within the immediate context of chapter 3? Turn back a couple of verses with me, if you would to verses 14 and 15.

V. 14, "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it"

Paul instructs Timothy to continue in what Timothy has learned and believed from Paul because he learned and believed it from Paul ("knowing from who you learned it"). Notice, at this time, Paul is not speaking of Scripture. Paul is speaking of what he has handed on to Timothy (1 Tim 6:20 - "O Timothy, Guard what has been entrusted to you"). This is the new revelation given in Jesus Christ apart from the law, the writings, and the prophets (the TaNaK). We call this "Tradition". It is the faithful handing on of the Christian faith, whole and entire; this would not be possible without the assitance and guidance of the Holy Spirit.

v. 15, "and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus."

When Paul wrote this epistle to Timothy, the New Testament did not exist. The only sacred writings that Timothy knew of since his childhood are the writings of the Old Testament. It is the Old Testament that Paul speaks of that are able to instruct Timothy for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.

Bless you,

Carson

[ November 11, 2002, 12:06 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Hi g_1933,

You wrote, ""Knowing from whom you learned it" Is Paul speaking of himself here or maybe of God?"

Considering that Paul discipled Timothy and taught Timothy the Christian faith, I would say that Paul is either speaking of (1) himself or (2) God in the sense that Paul taught Timothy what Jesus Christ taught when he was on Earth.

You wrote, "Personally I call the New Testament Scripture, along with the Old Testament."

Catholics do too, of course. The problem occurs when the deposit of faith given to the Church in the person and work of Jesus Christ is limited to the lowest common demoninator: New Testament writings. Jesus did not found a book. He founded a Church by teaching disciples orally. The New Testament writings emerged from this faith community, which is the household of God.

You also wrote, "My problem with the Catholic Church is that along with passing on these traditions, they have added their own traditions which are not Biblical"

And I would disagree with you. I would also attribute the continuation of authentic Tradition in the Church to the person and work of the Holy Spirit.

Hi blackbird,

You asked, "How come you don't want to pursue the subject of being born again on this thread??"

Because the topic of this thread is Scripture: the Communication of God's Word, which entails an analysis of the difference between Catholic and Fundamentalist approaches to interpreting the divine literature.

God bless,

Carson