|
Abstract
Scripture had supreme authority for the Old Testament
saints, Christ and His apostles in all matters it
touched upon. In particular, for Christ, what Scripture
said, God said. Christ also directly affirmed many of
the passages attacked by liberals. The charge that
Christ was mistaken or merely accommodating to His
hearers is impossible for a consistent Christian to
hold. The charge of circular reasoning fails on several
counts: the internal and external cross-checks, and the
role that axioms play in all philosophical systems.
I) Old Testament
1) Moses
Moses often testified that his writings
were from God:
Exodus 24:4:
'Moses then wrote down everything
the LORD
had said .'
See also v.7, Ex. 34:7, Nu. 33:1-2, Dt. 31:9,
Deuteronomy 31:11:
'when all Israel comes to appear
before the LORD
your God at the place he will choose, you shall read
this law before them in their hearing.'
2) Joshua
Joshua 1:8:
'Do not let this Book of the Law depart from your mouth;
meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful
to do everything written in it. Then you will be
prosperous and successful.'
The book of the Law is the Torah,
also called the Pentateuch, or the first five books of
the Bible.
3) David (c. 1000 BC)
Israel's greatest king clearly also
regarded the Law very highly. At his stage in history,
not too many books of Scripture had been written, but
the Pentateuch was regarded as God's Law.
Psalm 1:2:
'But his delight is in the law of
the LORD,
and on his law he meditates day and night.'
Return to Top
II) New Testament
1) Jesus Christ:
Matthew 19:3-6:
3 Some Pharisees
came to him to test him. They asked, 'Is it lawful for a
man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?'
4 'Haven't you
read,' he replied, 'that at the beginning the Creator
`made them male and female,'
5 and said, 'For
this reason a man will leave his father and mother and
be united to his wife, and the two will become one
flesh'?
6 So they are no
longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined
together, let man not separate.'
Note:
-
Christ accepted the Genesis Creation
account literally
-
He cited from Genesis 1:27 and 2:24,
showing that He did not regard Genesis 1 and 2
as separate contradictory creation accounts, but as
complementary.
-
v.5, which in Genesis is an editorial
comment, is equated with the word of the Creator. This
is not the only place where the New Testament cites an
Old Testament passage as 'God said'; compare the
following pairs: Ps. 2:1 & Acts 4:24-25, Ps. 2:7 &
Heb. 1:5, Ps. 16:10 & Acts 13:35, Ps. 95:7 & Heb. 3:7,
Ps. 97:7 & Heb. 1:6, Ps. 104:4 & Heb. 1:7, Is. 55:3 &
Acts 13:34. The converse is true in the following
pairs: Gen. 12:3 & Gal. 3:8, Ex. 9:6 & Rom. 9:17;
where a direct statement by God in the OT is cited as
'Scripture said'.
Luke 17:26-32:
26 'Just as it was
in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of
the Son of Man.
27 People were
eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage
up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came
and destroyed them all.
28 'It was the
same in the days of Lot. People were eating and
drinking, buying and selling, planting and building.
29 But the day Lot
left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and
destroyed them all.
30 'It will be
just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed.
31On that day no
one who is on the roof of his house, with his goods
inside, should go down to get them. Likewise, no one in
the field should go back for anything.
32 Remember Lot's
wife!
Note: Christ took the accounts of Noah's
flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and the
calamity befalling Lot's wife literally. Those who
dispute their historicity are therefore defying Christ.
Matthew 12:40 ff. show that Christ took the account
of Jonah and the whale literally, and even used it as a
type of His resurrection.
Luke 16:31:
'He (Abraham) said to him (the rich man in Hell), "If
they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will
not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead."'
Note: Christ clearly shows how important
the Old Testament is. Many liberal evolutionary
theologians who reject Moses also refuse to believe that
Christ rose from the dead.
John 5:46-47:
46 If you believed
Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.
47 But since you
do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to
believe what I say?
Note: a similar lesson can be learnt -
liberals who doubt Moses often doubt what Jesus said
(except of course for a selective use of His words if
they could somehow be twisted to support a cause they
happened to agree with).
Also, this shows that the
'JEDP/Documentary Hypothesis' of the Pentateuch is
contrary to Christ, who clearly taught that the
Pentateuch was edited by Moses.
Matthew 22:23-34:
23 That same day
the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to
him with a question.
24 "Teacher," they
said, "Moses told us that if a man dies without having
children, his brother must marry the widow and have
children for him.
25 Now there were
seven brothers among us. The first one married and died,
and since he had no children, he left his wife to his
brother.
26 The same thing
happened to the second and third brother, right on down
to the seventh.
27 Finally, the
woman died.
28 Now then, at
the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven,
since all of them were married to her?"
29 Jesus replied,
"You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures
or the power of God.
30 At the
resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in
marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.
31 But about the
resurrection of the dead - have you not read what God
said to you,
32 'I am the God
of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He
is not the God of the dead but of the living."
33 When the crowds
heard this, they were astonished at his teaching.
Note:
-
the Sadducees only accepted the
Pentateuch as Scripture, while the Pharisees accepted
the same books as the Protestant OT (as confirmed by
the prologue to Ecclesiasticus (ca. 130
BC), Josephus (ca. AD
90), Melito (ca. AD 170)). Jesus
accused the Sadducees of not knowing the Scriptures,
because they did not accept the Prophets and Writings.
-
Even the Scriptures accepted by the
Sadducees taught the resurrection: Christ demonstrated
this with an argument depending on the present tense
of the implied verb 'to be' implied - the patriarchs
were living in a sense in Moses' day, centuries after
they had died physically. This passage shows that the
Lord believed in verbal plenary inspiration of
Scripture.
Matthew 5:18:
'I tell you the truth, until
heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not
the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear
from the Law until everything is accomplished.'
Note: the 'jot' was the smallest Hebrew
letter, and the 'tittle' was a small part of the letter.
So Christ is supporting inspiration even down to the
individual letters.
Matthew 23:35:
'And so upon you will come all the
righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the
blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of
Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the
altar.'
Note: The Pharisees' Bible is the same
as the Protestant OT, but the order is different. The
first book was still Genesis, but the last book was 2
Chronicles. That generation was to be held responsible
for all God's people murdered in the OT, from Abel (Gen.
4:8) to Zechariah (2 Chron. 24:20-21). There were other
martyrdoms recorded in the Apocrypha, but Jesus did not
regard these writings as Scripture, and never cited
them. Jesus agreed with the Pharisaic canon (John 5:39),
but not the Saddusaic one.
The Apocrypha was not recognised as
canonical by the Jewish scholars at Jamnia (AD
90), and the Talmud stated that the Holy Spirit departed
from Israel after Malachi. Many Church Fathers agreed,
e.g. Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Jerome. Athanasius, in
his 39th Festal
Letter of AD 367, listed the same
canon as modern Protestants (with the exception of the
book of Esther). He also stated that the Apocryphal
books Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther
additions, Judith and Tobit were worth reading but not
canonical. He made no mention of the books of Maccabees.1
The apocryphal books abound in
geographical and historical errors,2
e.g. 2 Macc. 15:1 ff is inconsistent with 1 Macc. 2:41;
Judith 1:1 has Nebuchadnezzar reigning in Nineveh rather
than Babylon. The morality and doctrine of the
apocryphal books also falls short of biblical standards:
Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom teach morality based on
expedience; God assists Judith in a lie (Judith
9:10,13); salvation by works (Tobit 12:9, 14:10-11);
prayers for the dead (2 Macc 12:45-46), pre-existence of
souls (Wisdom 8:19-20) and creation out of pre-existent
matter (Wisdom 11:17). Even the books themselves
disclaim divine inspiration: 1 Macc. 9:27 recognises
that prophecy had disappeared in Israel, while 2 Macc.
15:37-39 admits that it was a human composition with
possible flaws.
John 10:35:
'. and the scriptures cannot be broken.' -
self-explanatory
John 14:26:
'But
the Counsellor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will
send in my name, will teach you all things and will
remind you of everything I have said to you.'
Note: Christ here promises his disciples
that they would be taught by the Holy Spirit. These
teachings eventually became written down in the New
Testament.
Return to Top
2) the Apostle Paul
2 Timothy 3:15-17:
15 and how from
infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are
able to make you wise for salvation through faith in
Christ Jesus.
16 All Scripture
is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking,
correcting and training in righteousness,
17 so that the man
of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Note:
-
the Greek word for
'Scriptures' in v.15 is grammata (grammata),
and must refer to the OT alone, as these are the only
Scriptures Timothy would have known from his childhood
-
in v. 16, the word translated
'Scripture' is grafh (graphè),
which would include the OT plus all the NT written by
then (AD 63), i.e. all the NT
except 2 Peter, Hebrews, Jude, and John's writings. As
Paul's writings were divinely inspired, this statement
would apply even to the latter books.
-
'God-breathed'
is a correct translation by the NIV of the Greek word qeopneustoV (theopneustos).
If Scripture is 'God-breathed'
and God cannot err, it logically follows that
Scripture cannot err.
-
Scripture is able to make a man
'wise unto salvation' and
'thoroughly furnished unto all
good works'. This implies that Scripture
contains all the doctrine and moral law we need.
-
But since v. 16 makes it clear that
all Scripture is God-breathed, not just some,
inerrancy applies to whatever the Bible affirms, and
is not restricted just to those verses deemed to
relate to faith and conduct. After all, doctrine is
inextricably linked to history and science, so that
whatever Scripture affirms on scientific or historical
matters is also true. For example, the key doctrine of
the Resurrection is linked to the historical fact that
Jesus' body had vacated the tomb on the third day. It
also impinges on science, because naturalistic
scientists assert that it is impossible for dead men
to rise. And the meaning of Jesus' death and
resurrection is tied to the historical accuracy of the
event recorded in Genesis (1 Cor. 15:21-22). And if we
bow to uniformitarian 'science' in the area of
origins, what should we do when Scriptural teaching on
morality conflicts with 'science', e.g. the Bible's
prohibition on adultery or homosexual acts vs
'scientific' assertions that such behaviours are 'in
our genes'. Jesus asked Nicodemus
'I have spoken to you of earthly
things and you do not believe; how then will you
believe if I speak of heavenly things?' (John
3:12).
-
1 Tim 5:18 cites both Deut. 25:4 and
Lk 10:7 as graphè; i.e. both the Old and New
Testaments. This again shows that the NT was already
regarded as Scripture even in apostolic times.
1 Timothy 2:12-14:
12 I do not permit
a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she
must be silent.
13 For Adam was
formed first, then Eve.
14 And Adam was
not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived
and became a sinner.
Note: Paul accepted the Genesis account
as a historical narrative, and used it to teach on the
role of men and women in Church.
Acts 17:1-3:
1 When they had
passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to
Thessalonica, where there was a Jewish synagogue.
2 As his custom
was, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath
days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures,
3 explaining and
proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the
dead. 'This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the
Christ,' he said.
Note: this shows how important the
Scriptures were to Paul's evangelism to Jews, who
already accepted them as authoritative.
2 Pet. 1:20-21:
20 Above all, you
must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about
by the prophet's own interpretation.
21 For prophecy
never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke
from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
Note: The chief Apostle, Peter, believed
that God moved (literally 'carried along') the writers
of Scripture so that they recorded exactly what He
wanted. However, God did not usually dictate the words,
but superintended the authors so that, using their own
individual personalities, they recorded His revelation
without error.
Acts 17:10-11:
10 As soon as it
was night, the brothers sent Paul and Silas away to
Berea. On arriving there, they went to the Jewish
synagogue.
11 Now the Bereans
were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for
they received the message with great eagerness and
examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul
said was true.
This shows that even Paul's teaching was
subjected to the test of Scripture by people who were
commended for it. So Christians today should follow that
Berean example and test the teachings of any church (or
scientist) by Scripture.
Return to Top 3) Peter
2 Peter 3:15-16:
15 Bear in mind
that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our
dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that
God gave him.
16 He writes the
same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these
matters. His letters contain some things that are hard
to understand, which ignorant and unstable people
distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own
destruction.
Note: Peter affirms that Paul's writings
were also Scripture.
4) Jude
Jude 3:
'Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you
about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and
urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all
entrusted to the saints.'
N.B. If the faith was once delivered,
then there is no need for additional revelations of
doctrine after the canon of scripture was closed).
5) John
John 14:26:
'But
the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will
send in my name, will teach you all things and will
remind you of everything I have said to you.'
Christ's promise in John 14:26 was to
His disciples personally present. John was the last
survivor, so his books are the last of the NT Canon. It
is possible that Rev. 22:18-19 is an indication that
this book closes the Canon.
Note on the Canon: Each book was
canonical as soon as it was finished, because its
ultimate author was God Himself. The NT scholar FF Bruce
writes:
'The NT books
did not become authoritative for the Church because
they were formally included in a canonical list; on
the contrary, the Church included them in her canon
because she already regarded them as divinely
inspired, recognising their innate worth and generally
apostolic authority, direct or indirect.. [Church]
councils [did] not impose something new upon the
Christian communities but codif[ied] what was already
the general practice of those communities.'3
Return to Top
III) Church Fathers
All the NT except 11 verses could be reconstructed from the
writings of the Fathers.4
For Irenaeus (c. AD 170), the fourfold gospel was as
axiomatic as the four quarters of the earth and the four winds. He cited 23 of
the 27 NT books, omitting only Philemon, James, 2 Peter and 3 John. Ignatius (AD
50-115), Bishop of Antioch, cited 15 NT books. He recognised that the NT had a
higher authority than he: 'I do not wish to command you as
Peter and Paul; they were apostles.
Return to Top
Objections
1) John 20:30
'Jesus did many other miraculous signs
in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book.'
This verse is used to suggest that perhaps the Church has
preserved some essential doctrines not taught in Scripture. However, the next
verse implies that what was written was enough (note all the NT had been
written by the time that John was written, except for his letters and
Revelation) - John 20:31:
'But these are written that you may
believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you
may have life in his name.'
2) 2 Thessalonians 2:15
'So then, brothers, stand firm and hold
to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.'
This verse is sometimes alleged to support the existence of
essential tradition not recorded in scripture. However, this book was probably
one of the first NT books written (AD 51), so the verse
does not apply once all the essential traditions had been recorded in the NT.
1 Cor. 15:1 ff. is a good example of a well established oral tradition which
Paul writes down.
3) 1 Timothy 3:15:
'if I am delayed, you will know how
people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of
the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.'
Paul was simply affirming the church as the support and bulwark
- not the source - of God's truth. His words should not be stretched beyond this
to claim that no-one can know the truth unless he depends on the teaching of
some organised church or church group. Note:
-
The Greek word ecclesia means congregation or assembly,
so this verse cannot rule out (say) Sunnybank District Baptist Church.
-
Even a church founded by apostles could have its lampstand
removed from its place (Rev. 2:5).
Return to Top
4) Jesus was mistaken, because in the
Incarnation his omnipotence was masked
Often this and the next blasphemous charge are made by liberal
theologians or theistic evolutionists with pious-sounding talk about Jesus'
humanity. But:
-
This confuses Limitation and misunderstanding:5
while the Second Person of the Trinity was incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth, He
voluntarily limited His omniscience (Phil. 2:5-11). I.e., in His humanity, He
did not know all things. But this does not entail that He was mistaken
about anything He said. All human understanding is finite, but this doesn't
entail that every human understanding is errant. Also, what Jesus did
preach, He proclaimed with absolute authority (Mt. 24:35, 28:18), because He
was speaking with the full authority of God the Father (John 5:30, 8:28), who
is always omniscient. So if a liberal wishes to maintain his charge that
Christ was mistaken because of His humanity, he must logically charge God the
Father with error as well. Or else, if Jesus taught an inerrant Bible and
attributed his teaching to the Father and such teaching is wrong, Jesus must
be a charlatan in a hopeless muddle.
-
Where do you draw the line? If Jesus was wrong in His view of
Scripture, maybe He was wrong in other areas too. Who decides whether He is
right or wrong? We must, so Jesus loses His authority.
Return to Top
5) Jesus deliberately accommodated Himself
to the mistaken views of His audience
But:
-
This confuses Adaptation to human finitude with
accommodation to human error:5
the former does not entail the latter. A mother might tell her
four-year-old 'you grew inside my tummy' - this is not false, but language
simplified to the child's level. Conversely, 'the stork brought you' is an
outright error. Similarly, God, the author of truth, used some simplified
descriptions (e.g. using the earth as a reference frame, as modern scientists
do today) and anthropomorphisms, but never error.
-
Jesus often challenged His audience, so He would not have
failed to point out their mistaken views on Scripture, if such they were.
-
If Jesus acquiesced in this error, maybe He did so elsewhere
as well. Who ultimately decides when Jesus is acquiescing? We must, so once
again, Jesus loses His authority.
-
The passages considered in
section II(1) show that Jesus was
not just acquiescing to the views of His audience on the inerrancy of
Scripture, but was in fact reinforcing them.
Return to Top
6) Jesus was misreported, or we can't
possibly know what He believed
But:
-
First, it is absurd for liberals to claim to be 'Christian' if
they cannot be sure that they are really following Christ.
-
On what basis can they possibly invoke Christ's teachings on
any topic at all, usually their favoured politically correct causes?
-
Even many liberal scholars believe that there is overwhelming
historical evidence that Christ affirmed biblical inerrancy, although they
disagree with Him. The evangelical scholar Harold Lindsell6
cites the liberal scholars H.J. Cadbury, Adolph Harnack, Rudolf Bultmann and
F.C. Grant to prove this point.
Return to Top
7) This is circular reasoning
In answer to that:
-
As shown, even many liberals believe that there is
overwhelming evidence that Christ affirmed biblical inerrancy. Such
independent support of Christ's statements proves that evangelicals do not
necessarily commit the fallacy of arguing in a circle, of using the Bible to
prove the Bible.
-
It is not circular to use Matthew to prove Genesis (Mt.
19:3-6, cf. Gn. 1:27, 2:4), Paul to prove Luke (1 Tim 5:18, cf. Lk. 10:7) or
Peter to prove Paul (2 Pet. 3:15-16). Finally, allegedly circular reasoning at
least demonstrates the internal consistency of the Bible's claims it makes
about itself. If the Bible had actually disclaimed divine inspiration, it
would indeed be illogical to defend it. This is one argument against the
canonicity of the Apocrypha - as shown
above, 1 Macc. 9:27 and 2 Macc.
15:37-39 disclaim divine inspiration.
-
Evangelicals accept the authority of Scripture as an axiom or
presupposition: i.e. as a starting point or assumption that requires no
proof, and is the basis for all reasoning. All philosophical systems
start with axioms. So it's not a question of a religious system starting from
prior assumptions vs. a 'scientific' system without any prior assumptions, but
which axioms are self-consistent and provide a consistent framework in which
to fit the evidence.
Return to Top
©2002 Wellington Christian Apologetics Society
(Inc.) All Rights Reserved.
Previously published in
Apologia (The Journal of the Wellington Christian Apologetics Society)
Vol.3, No.2, p.12-16, 1994
References
Bruce,
F.F.
The Canon of Scripture, IVP, Downers Gr, Ill., pp. 7780 1988.
Return to text.
Bruce,
F.F.
Evangelical Quarterly 42:55, 1970, says: It is possible for scholars
to defend the historicity of Daniel and Esther; but it is very difficult indeed to argue for the historical inerrancy of Tobit and Judith.
Return to text.
Bruce,
F.F.
The New Testament Documents: Are they reliable? (Downers Gr, Ill.: IVP 1960).
Return to text.
Geisler,
Norman L. and William E. Nix. A General Introduction to the Bible, Ch. 24. Moody, Chicago, Revised and Expanded 1986.
Return to text.
Geisler and Nix. Ref. 4, pp. 6264 contains helpful discussions of these points.
Return to text.
Lindsell,
Harold.
The Battle for the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976), pp. 4345.
Return to text.
Recommended Reading
-
Archer, G.L. Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties,
Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, USA ,1982.
-
Clark, G.H. God's Hammer: The Bible and its Critics,
The Trinity Foundation, Jefferson, MD, USA: 2nd ed. 1987.
-
Enns, P. The Moody Handbook of Theology, Moody Press,
Chicago, 1989, Ch. 18.
-
Geisler, N.L. and R.M. Brooks, When Skeptics Ask, Victor
Books, Wheaton, IL, USA, 1990.
-
Geisler, N.L. and T.R. Howe, When Critics Ask, Victor
Books, Wheaton, IL, USA, 1992.
-
Geisler, N.L. and Wm. E. Nix, A General Introduction to the
Bible, Moody, Chicago, 1986.
-
Lindsell, H. The Battle for the Bible, Zondervan, Grand
Rapids, MI, USA, 1976.
-
McDowell, J. Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Here's
Life Publishers, San Bernardino, CA 92402, USA, 1981.
-
Morris, H.M. with H.M. Morris
III. Many Infallible Proofs, Master Books, Green Forest, AR 72638, USA, 1996.
-
Wenham, John W. Christ and the Bible, Eagle, Guildford,
Surrey, UK, 3rd ed., 1993.
The Formation of the OT Canon
The Textual Reliability of the New Testament
©2002 Wellington Christian Apologetics Society
(Inc.) All Rights Reserved.
Previously published in
Apologia (The Journal of the Wellington Christian Apologetics Society)
Vol.3, No.2, p.12-16, 1994
|