Biblical inerrancy

[felix]

I am concerned about the tone of these, and other remarks in your post to me.

If you care to discuss, I will. Perhaps if you clarified what you meant to say...

Deutrocannonical is a term given to some books of LXX at a later point of history during the Jewish canonization by Jews nearly 4 decades after the death of Christ.

When Jesus Christ walked on earth, there was no separation of Deutrocannonical books from LXX. All early apostles and disciples quoted repeated from LXX. Paul in Hebrews even quoted from one of the Deutrocannonical books which is not found elsewhere in any other OT books. There are also other references but not significant. Hence, LXX which is not 39 books of OT, has many Deutrocannonical books later rejected by Christians during 2nd and 3rd century but never rejected by Christ, apostles and early church. This is one of the arguments Catholics usually use. I went into the details to find what is contradicting or what different doctrine can it produce, but the truth is, if we follow the order of authority, we never error because, none of the Deutrocannonical books have any quotes of God. Hence, they themselves are not authoritative but that does not mean they are to be thrown away. They have equal status as Esther which also have no reference to God. They are good historical references or may be even good folk tales written down. However, the truth is, they are faithfully translated into Greek considering it as scriptures during the 3rd century BC.

Having said the above, you cannot exalt a man's letter (like Paul's or Peter's) over Christ's spoken words who is the Word of God.

Hence, I stress upon the Order of Authority which will solve most of the problems.

 

[By Grace]

Felix,

i commend you on your diligence to want to be exact, and follow the work of one man. However, I have to note that in the rejection of the works of the Early Church Fathers, as well as writings of the Apostles and Gospel writers, you are discarding them, and consequently exalting yourself to a position that is actually higher than either the Apostles or the Early Church Fathers. As well-meaning as you seem to be, that way of yours is fraught with danger, and such an endeavor has been the genesis of many cults. I do not accuse you of anything, but I am letting you be aware that the highways of history are strewn with car wrecks from well-intentioned, self-styled leaders because they neglected the lessons of history.

Here from your web page is the essence of the great error you put forth:

It is interesting to note that Christ included only the law of Moses, Psalms and Prophets as Scripture. He neither included nor referred any other as Scripture. If this is the case, how can we add any other book as Scripture? Hence, the below books are the Scripture referred by Christ, which are authoritative only next to words of Christ because they give witness to Christ.

The reason for that is in including in your "Felix canon" only the words spoken by Jesus as a reference to 'acceptable books of Scripture" you neglect that books associated with David, as an example include not only Psalms, but also the historical books of Kings and Samuel, which did not appear on your list.

Nor did you include Judges, which tells of a time when everyone did that which was right in his own eyes. In other words, anarchy reigned, and that anarchy set the stage for Saul, the first King of Israel, who was not God's first choice. That was David. I am pointing these things out not to "score points" but to demonstrate that EVERYTHING in the Bible is interlaced. You can not take one thing from canon without affecting another part of canon.

You seem to be an intelligent fellow, for you are wanting to do good things with Scripture. However, you did not learn how to read by yourself, nor how to write, nor C+ or whatever you program in. Someone taught them all to you. the same goes in the discipline of history, and in theology. In most cases in grad school for those disciplines, we read things from dead guys and gals. It is not because we do not want to learn something new; rather it is because the dead guys we study wrote stuff that stands the test of time. In other words, we look over the shoulders of giants. Your approach seems as if you are jettisoning all the giants of the past to make yourself into a bigger giant than any of the Reformers, or Early Church Fathers. If that is the case, then in all sincerity, and without any malice towards you, that would be a very prideful position to take.

While the ECFs are not as authoritative as is canon, they are instructive because they wrote stuff that came from what the Apostles taught them. We certainly do not take their writings as inerrant, but we do take them as instructive, and we look to them as our teachers. A good example of this is Augustine. Venerated as a saint by the Roman Church, we who read City of God, and Confessions see the fervent prayers of a mother (Monica) answered, and we also see many things that are more protestant than "Roman Catholic" in his books. In the same manner, we can chuckle at the earthiness of a certain German monk, who stated in an exuberant boast that he would "pass gas" in the face of the devil. Surely no one uses that "f-bomb word" in any polite society, nor in church! But that is what Luther wrote, so we acknowledge the warts, and go on.

So what I am attempting to state with examples, is that your so-called "Order of Authority" actually CREATES problems, and answers questions that do not exist.

I hope that I have made my points clear, and that there is no hint of personal acrimony towards you in the reply.

 

[felix]

However, I have to note that in the rejection of the works of the Early Church Fathers, as well as writings of the Apostles and Gospel writers, you are discarding them, and consequently exalting yourself to a position that is actually higher than either the Apostles or the Early Church Fathers. As well-meaning as you seem to be, that way of yours is fraught with danger, and such an endeavor has been the genesis of many cults. I do not accuse you of anything, but I am letting you be aware that the highways of history are strewn with car wrecks from well-intentioned, self-styled leaders because they neglected the lessons of history.

I don't still understand how can I possibly error if I have the Words of Christ as the authority ?
I also don't understand where I have exalted myself to a position that is actually higher than anyone ? The only person I have ever exalted using the Order of Authority is Christ.

The reason for that is in including in your "Felix canon" only the words spoken by Jesus as a reference to 'acceptable books of Scripture" you neglect that books associated with David, as an example include not only Psalms, but also the historical books of Kings and Samuel, which did not appear on your list.

Nor did you include Judges, which tells of a time when everyone did that which was right in his own eyes. In other words, anarchy reigned, and that anarchy set the stage for Saul, the first King of Israel, who was not God's first choice. That was David. I am pointing these things out not to "score points" but to demonstrate that EVERYTHING in the Bible is interlaced. You can not take one thing from canon without affecting another part of canon.

I never excluded anything as you say, I just placed them at a level lower in terms of "authority". Judges is certainly not as authoritative as the Law.

However, you did not learn how to read by yourself, nor how to write, nor C+ or whatever you program in. Someone taught them all to you. the same goes in the discipline of history, and in theology. In most cases in grad school for those disciplines, we read things from dead guys and gals. It is not because we do not want to learn something new; rather it is because the dead guys we study wrote stuff that stands the test of time. In other words, we look over the shoulders of giants. Your approach seems as if you are jettisoning all the giants of the past to make yourself into a bigger giant than any of the Reformers, or Early Church Fathers. If that is the case, then in all sincerity, and without any malice towards you, that would be a very prideful position to take.

Except reading and writing, what you said is wrong. I did learn to program myself. So does theology and doctrines having only Christ as the authority. There is nothing wrong in "testing apostles" as we see in Rev 2.2. If I stress the authority of Christ and His teachings, I still don't understand where the pride comes in.

While the ECFs are not as authoritative as is canon, they are instructive because they wrote stuff that came from what the Apostles taught them. We certainly do not take their writings as inerrant, but we do take them as instructive, and we look to them as our teachers. A good example of this is Augustine. Venerated as a saint by the Roman Church, we who read City of God, and Confessions see the fervent prayers of a mother (Monica) answered, and we also see many things that are more protestant than "Roman Catholic" in his books. In the same manner, we can chuckle at the earthiness of a certain German monk, who stated in an exuberant boast that he would "pass gas" in the face of the devil. Surely no one uses that "f-bomb word" in any polite society, nor in church! But that is what Luther wrote, so we acknowledge the warts, and go on.

The Order of Authority simply means what it says. It does not define any canon. The last of the authority is any books or teachings of any preacher or pastor or early church fathers.

So what I am attempting to state with examples, is that your so-called "Order of Authority" actually CREATES problems, and answers questions that do not exist.

I don't think it creates any problem as long as you are willing to lay down the foundation as Christ and build over with Paul and other apostles's and ECF's teachings. It must never be the other way round. You cannot lay down the foundation with Paul or any church father and then build using Christ's teachings. I don't understand why it even creates any problem if we have Christ as the foundation ?

 

[By Grace]

I don't still understand how can I possibly error if I have the Words of Christ as the authority ?

There is a twofold issue with this, but i need to state that in many respects, the words of Jesus Christ are no more, nor any less important than the words of any of the Apostles in the NT. If that were not so, Paul could now have written 2 Timothy 3:16 & 17: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

First, your position is a position taken from silence

There is no Scripture that tells us to take the words or writings of this person or that person as superior to another Therein is the issue of silence.

The second issue is that of effect. If you create something where you can say, "this verse has more authority than that verse."you are thereby creating a "schizophrenic Bible" where a person or sect can say, "I only follow the red letters" another can say, I follow Paul, and still another, I follow Moses. You can see where that goes, and it is destroying the uniformity and authority of the entire Bible.

I also don't understand where I have exalted myself to a position that is actually higher than anyone ? The only person I have ever exalted using the Order of Authority is Christ.

The fact that you attempted to do a "ranking of authority" of Bible verses, something that ignores 200+ years of reading the Apostles, and the Early Church Fathers etc. scholarship of their writings is a tacit admission of unwarranted hubris. But because your efforts were sincere, I believe that you find it difficult to accept that opinion.

If I believed that you were deliberately attempting to exalt yourself, I would have been less kind. The important thing is that you see the unintended consequences of your position.

I never excluded anything as you say, I just placed them at a level lower in terms of "authority". Judges is certainly not as authoritative as the Law.

When I saw the chart, I did not see those books specifically mentioned. Nevertheless, this should be a good example of how people can get the wrong impression from your chart.

Except reading and writing, what you said is wrong. I did learn to program myself. So does theology and doctrines having only Christ as the authority. There is nothing wrong in "testing apostles" as we see in Rev 2.2. If I stress the authority of Christ and His teachings, I still don't understand where the pride comes in.

When you learned C+ you picked up a book; that was your teacher. You needed to study and read to learn it. It is not a language that you learned from birth. That is my point. Someone had to put it together for you to comprehend. The same thing holds in the world of systematic theology. Jesus Christ is the Son of God, but He is NOT a theologian. What a theologian does is to gather all the verses on a single subject, such as the deity and humanity of Jesus, and weave them into a tapestry that is Scripture centered. Through the collective works of great theologians we come to realize that Jesus is ond Divine Person, having two natures. He is 100% God and 100% human simultaneously with no division of parts or intermingling of the natures.

Through the words of Paul, we have the first Creed,

Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed
​

Through the works of theologians we have the Apostle's Creed "I believe in God the Father Almighty..." and all other Ecumenical Creeds.

Therefore to be dismissive of systematic theology is to be dismissive of all the Creeds, and the systematic study of Scriptures.

The Order of Authority simply means what it says. It does not define any canon. The last of the authority is any books or teachings of any preacher or pastor or early church fathers.

The consequence of your chard does exactly that, Felix.

I don't think it creates any problem as long as you are willing to lay down the foundation as Christ and build over with Paul and other apostles's and ECF's teachings. It must never be the other way round. You cannot lay down the foundation with Paul or any church father and then build using Christ's teachings. I don't understand why it even creates any problem if we have Christ as the foundation ?

There are some things on which Jesus is silent, but which james or Peter are clear. We need to understand that ALL Scripture is God breathed, and thus is authoritative, and the only rule for both the faith and the practice. To be blunt, your well-intentioned chart creates more problems than it solves.

 

[felix]

... the words of Jesus Christ are no more, nor any less important than the words of any of the Apostles in the NT. If that were not so, Paul could now have written 2 Timothy 3:16 & 17: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Either you are not reading what I write or not willing to read and giving up the same answer.

• Father - Deut 18:18-19, Son - John 12:48 and Holy Spirit - John 14:26, all declare the authority of Christ’s words.
• Christ refers Law, Prophets, Psalms as Scripture.

If you either believe in God, the Father or the Son or the Holy Spirit, then you will accept the authority of Christ's words. Unfortunately, you don't seem to believe. This makes the second point virtually useless to even say to you because, you don't accept the authority of Christ. You just degraded Christ's words to be just like a common man's. Ok, I will apply Matt 7:6 here.

(Luke 21:33) Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.

 

[By Grace]

Ok, I will apply Matt 7:6 here.]

Why did you post such a condemning Scripture, and attempt to apply it to me? :-(

 

[felix]

Why did you post such a condemning Scripture, and attempt to apply it to me? :-(

Because, if you either believe in God, the Father or the Son or the Holy Spirit, then you will accept the authority of Christ's words. Unfortunately, you don't seem to believe. This makes the second point virtually useless to even say to you because, you don't accept the authority of Christ. You just degraded Christ's words to be just like a common man's.

 

[WIP]

I request that we dispel with the accusations. Are we here to help each other grow or degrade each other with our words? Only God knows where each of us is in our journey so let's let God do the judging.

 

[Steven Avery]

Psalms 119:160 - Thy word is true from the beginning:

Hi Folks,

Psalms 119:160 (AV)
Thy word is true from the beginning:
and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

Anyone who is given faith in the canon and words of scripture and who is aware of the biases of the various translations, never depends upon any translation for his understanding. All true seekers of truth have learned to use the scriptural system of "the sum of thy word is truth."

Why would we use a scriptural system based on a mistranslation "sum of..." (ESV). Implying the total amount only, or the result. There is nothing like that in the pure Bible text.

Psalms 119:160 "The sum of thy word is truth; And every one of thy righteous ordinances endureth for ever."
John 17:17 "Sanctify them in the truth: thy word is truth." What the whole world considers to be the Christian Bible may have the punctuation marks in the wrong place, it may have chapter and verse breakdowns which were not inspired of God, and words that are 'questionable' when translated from one language to another, but the Holy Spirit, and not man, has seen to it that "the sum of thy word" is still to this day, the Truth.If we cannot agree upon what is "Thy Word," then we need not be discussing what is and what is not Truth.

And I agree that it is very important to identify, and utilize, the pure and perfect word of God.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

 

[Steven Avery]

inerrancy in the original autographs ?

Hi,

Properly understood, inerrancy refers to the autogtapha. That is the original manuscripts of the Apostles, and the the others who wrote Scripture.

The idea that either inerrancy or infallibility (I will leave that distinction alone for now) only refers to the autographa, the original writings, was a doctrine created in the late 1800s at the same time that the Westcott-Hort text, with many obvious errors, was being pushed for use in some churches.

Before that time, inerrancy and infallibility were posited in either the apographa (existing passed-down pure Bible copies) or the Bible in your hand (e.g. the AV). And those are the only meaningful definitions. Since it is not logical to posit inerrancy and infallibility in an unknown, ethereal text. This was pointed out by many writers at the time that the new definition was brought forth.

Psalm 119:140
Thy word is very pure:
therefore thy servant loveth it.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery
Bayside, NY
http://purebible.blogspot.com/

 

[Steven Avery]

John 1:14 - And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us

Hi,

It is inspiration of God or inspired of God NOT Word of God. The Word became Flesh not papyri or paper.

If you look at the AV you will see the distinction between the two meanings of Word is carefully maintained through capitalization.

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was

John 1:14
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,
(and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,)
full of grace and truth.

1 John 5:7
For there are three that bear record in heaven
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:
and these three are one.

Revelation 19:13
And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood:
and his name is called The Word of God.

For the lower case, and with the emphasis on scripture, these verses were given by Stovebolts in #126.

Ephesians 6:17
And take the helmet of salvation,
and the sword of the Spirit,
which is the word of God:

2 Timothy 2:15
Study to shew thyself approved unto God,
a workman that needeth not to be ashamed,
rightly dividing the word of truth.

Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is quick, and powerful,
and sharper than any twoedged sword,
piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit,
and of the joints and marrow,
and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Your siggy mentions the NKJV, often it does not keep proper distinctions from the AV, however you could check there.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

 

[Steven Avery]

Received Text as superior to Critical Text / modern versions

Hi,

So with all that, I am wondering about your belief that the TR is more reliable. BTW this is the sort of discussion I would do on the 1 on 1.

Yes, I am happy for 1 to 1 discussion. Also, actually, I am not a TR person.

And I would be available for some of those discussions. If you look at the Comma Johanneum thread, p. 5-7,

Comma Johanneum
http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=41719&p=739734&viewfull=1#post739734
Discussion that relates more to TR in general
http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=41719&p=740150&viewfull=1#post740150

you will find a lot of my general position expressed. We generally agree on pure Bible issues (e.g. the chart on #129 with the distinction between evangelicals and neo-evangelicals makes good points) and this is one of the few forums where the posters are generally helpful and solid, with good moderation. So, in any place appropriate, I think we could address the pure Bible text issues.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

 

[Steven Avery]

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God

Hi,

Felix, I have no idea of what you are doing in establishing a hierarchy of Bible verses or sections. Paul the Apostle stated in 2 Timothy 3:16 that ALL Scripture is inspired by God..." As a Rabbi, who earned the equivalent of a Ph.D. sitting under Gamaliel, He was referring BACK to the entire OT, as well as his writings, and the writings of the other Apostles which were to come..

Amen. And just to add to this, it is also very likely that Paul was referring to the Gospels, since they were circulating for awhile at this time, and Paul referred to Luke's gospel as scripture, in his earlier letter to Timothy.

1 Timothy 5:18
For the scripture saith,
Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn.
And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God,
and is profitable for doctrine,

Luke 10:7
And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give:
for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

 

[Grazer]

Hi,

Amen. And just to add to this, it is also very likely that Paul was referring to the Gospels, since they were circulating for awhile at this time, and Paul referred to Luke's gospel as scripture, in his earlier letter to Timothy.

1 Timothy 5:18
For the scripture saith,
Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn.
And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God,
and is profitable for doctrine,

Luke 10:7
And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give:
for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

Luke's gospel wasn't written until around 70AD, Paul was writing from 50AD if not earlier. The basics of the Christian faith were being spread at that time but the gospels were not around then.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[Steven Avery]

early NT dating is consistent and accurate

Hi,

Luke's gospel wasn't written until around 70AD, Paul was writing from 50AD if not earlier.

Then how would you explain Paul referring to Luke's gospel as scripture ?
If it was not yet written.

The consistent historical and textual understanding has Luke writing to the high priest Theophilus, the Gospel account a bit after 40 AD, when he was the "most excellent" high priest, Acts written a bit after 60 AD.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY

 

[Grazer]

Hi,

Then how would you explain Paul referring to Luke's gospel as scripture ?
If it was not yet written.

The consistent historical and textual understanding has Luke writing to the high priest Theophilus, the Gospel account a bit after 40 AD, when he was the "most excellent" high priest, Acts written a bit after 60 AD.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY

Can you provide a source or scholar/historian who believes Luke's gospel was written in the 40's AD because I know of none. All date it between 60 and 80AD. Craig Blomberg who translates for the NIV gives a brief outline of it and suggests Luke and Paul knew each other

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbjtXabxU-Y

This means Luke possibly copied from Paul not the other way around

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[VirginShallConceive]

Re: early NT dating is consistent and accurate

Then how would you explain Paul referring to Luke's gospel as scripture?

Where does it say in Paul's writings that Paul refers to the Gospel of Luke as scripture?

The consistent historical and textual understanding has Luke writing to the high priest Theophilus, the Gospel account a bit after 40 AD, when he was the "most excellent" high priest, Acts written a bit after 60 AD.

You mean that the Gospel of Luke was written before the Gospel of Mark?

 

[Steven Avery]

Theophilus: A Proposal

Hi,

First, understand that any date pre-70 AD is very different than any date post-70 AD, when the prophecies of the destruction of the Temple would be post-facto. Plus the later the dating, the more the chronological problems, if you accept the New Testament text as accurate and historical..

Can you provide a source or scholar/historian who believes Luke's gospel was written in the 40's AD because I know of none.

One place to start is with the Richard Anderson paper, which is available in Archive.org :

Theophilus: A Proposal (1996)
Richard H. Anderson
http://web.archive.org/web/20051231195209/http://www.geocities.com/gospelofluke/theosub/THEOSUB.htm
When one realizes how few facts are available for the dating of Luke-Acts, then the salutation 'most excellent Theophilus' becomes a valuable clue not only for the dating but also for the identification of the intended audience....

All date it between 60 and 80AD. Craig Blomberg who translates for the NIV gives a brief outline of it and suggests Luke and Paul knew each other https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbjtXabxU-Y This means Luke possibly copied from Paul not the other way around

That does not fit with Paul referring to a verse from Luke's Gospel as scripture. Also, the sense of Paul's letters is that the history and life of Jesus was already known and available to the reader. (Granted, you could try to put a huge gap between an earlier Mark and a later Luke, then you have the problem of telescoping Luke-Acts very closely together, since Acts really can be dated to almost exactly 62 AD, thus giving you one terminus ad quem for Luke).

The Craig Blomberg video is fair, with strong points and some not-so-strong.

Where does it say in Paul's writings that Paul refers to the Gospel of Luke as scripture?

The verse reference in 1 Timothy is given in the post above, #173.

You mean that the Gospel of Luke was written before the Gospel of Mark?

Likely. Although Mark was likely written around the same period in the early 40s when Mark was in Rome with Peter. My own studies have tended to indicate that Luke was available to Mark's readers, however this is a question with a number of apsects.

With Mark, the original text might well have been in Latin or a Graeco-Latin dialect.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

 

[VirginShallConceive]

Re: Theophilus: A Proposal

The verse reference in 1 Timothy is given in the post above, #173.

Thank you for your detailed response. I missed the similarity of those verses until you kindly brought my attention to them.

There could be a few different possibilities for these similarities:

1) The author of 1 Timothy used the Gospel of Luke as a source because the Gospel of Luke was written first.

2) The author of the Gospel of Luke used 1 Timothy as a source because 1 Timothy was written first.

3) Both authors used a phrase that ultimately originated from an earlier, separate source. For instance, if one were to read "The grass is always greener on the other side" from two different authors, one might conclude that neither of those authors is the originator. It could have been originated elsewhere and passed down in written form and/or orally.

4) God is the direct author of both verses, which would have them originating from the same source.


These are the only four explanations I can think of at the moment. I would also like to add that this is if we are only using these selected verses as the criterion of our dating of these books. My point is that the similarity of these two verses is useless when it comes to dating these writings.

My own studies have tended to indicate that Luke was available to Mark's readers, however this is a question with a number of apsects.

That's interesting. I'll have to check into that.

 

[Grazer]

Re: Theophilus: A Proposal

That's interesting. I'll have to check into that.

So will I because every historian/scholar I've spoken/emailed, dates Luke after Mark and that Luke used Mark as a source