i like college group...
we had a very cool college bible study last night. we are reading through 2 Peter right now, in pursuit of the end of the NT before we head back to the OT prophets for even more insight. so last night was 2 Peter 1 and 2.we spent some time talking about heresy and the reasons why the bible rises above books of other faiths. we spent time discussing why the bible should be considered the word of god through faith and not just a collection of good stories and principles that we should think about.
we talked about the historicity and accuracy of the prohesies and the eyewitness accounts that we have of jesus' life, specific events even like the transfiguration in matthew 17 that peter is talking about in 2 peter 2.
it was pretty dope. anyways, trip on this passage...
2 peter 1:20-21
Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 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.
now we're talking. now we're getting somewhere.
2 peter 1:3
His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness
somehow, god's hand has directed thousands of years of writings/thought/experience/events to culmination into a book in which we have everything that we need. EVERYTHING.
wow. seriously though...wow.
posted by pablo
11 comments
11 Comments:
-
At ,
Keith (Qoheleth) said...
-
-
At ,
Keith (Qoheleth) said...
-
-
At ,
trazomfreak said...
-
-
At ,
Keith (Qoheleth) said...
-
-
At ,
Keith (Qoheleth) said...
-
-
At ,
trazomfreak said...
-
-
At ,
pablo said...
-
-
At ,
pablo said...
-
-
At ,
steve w said...
-
-
At ,
pablo said...
-
-
At ,
pablo said...
-
Post a CommentSam:
2Ti 3:16-17 - "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."
"Adequate" in 17 is 'artios, and can be translated "complete" or "perfect" (in the grammatical sense of perfect, i.e. whole and finished). The KJV, in fact, uses "perfect." The Bible, therefore, has everything we need to make us complete for every work to which He calls us, and complete to live a mature Christian life.
There are other things we are given in addition: God's indwelling and empowering Spirit in our lives, for example, or each believer's spiritual gifts - all of which are taught and contained in the Bible.
Does the Bible have everything we need? It doesn't have my next meal, nor does it have a job where I can earn the money for the clothes I wear, or the roof over my head. But it has all the teaching I need, and the direction to get that job (Eph. 4:28, for example). Diligently studying the Bible, and applying the many things it teaches, does in fact have everything we need for all of life. I'm with Pablo in this. And Pablo, GREAT passage - I can read your excitement.
1Pe 1 is really an amazing passage. Catch the connection between verses 18 and 19, because many people miss it. In 16-18, Peter is writing "We experienced God's power first-hand! We were there with Jesus on the mountain when He was transfigured! We were eyewitnesses! We heard the voice of the Father! And the standard by which the teaching of our faith is to be measured is..."
If you're understand and paying attention, then you've got to be expecting the next words to be "... our personal first-hand experience of God." Peter makes an unexpected left turn going into verse 19 and surprises us with "... God's Word, the Bible." The break between 18 and 19 is a tremendous non sequitur in its context. But what he's saying is, going all the way back to 12, is "I want to remind you of what you have been taught." Peter saw Jesus transfigured. His readers didn't and neither did you or I; we can't base our faith on Peter's experiences, because we didn't have those experiences - we weren't there.
But Peter says we have the prophetic word more certain. More certain than the Transfiguration! Because three men got to see the Transfiguration, but the Bible is given to all of us. The Bible is unchanging. Everyone's experiences are different; a single believer's feeling can change day to day, or moment to moment. My inner feelings might be as inconstant as the moon in its phases, but God gave us His word in the Bible, which never changes.
THAT'S what Peter is getting at.
Only one question for you, Sam. You wrote: "The Bible is the best collection of the verified words of God that we have." To the best of my knowledge, it's the ONLY one. Or is there another?
- Keith
Sam: actually, I have nothing in my library other than the Bible that could be call the inspired word of God.
You raise valuable questions in your comment. "Wouldn't it be awesome if God used the Holy Spirit to speak through people today?" If? Most assuredly, God the Holy Spirit does speak to and through believers today. "What if those people wrote it down?" I'm certain some, perhaps many, do. "I wonder if we could use the same criteria that they used back in the day to identify present day writing as words of God." I suppose we could, but since one of those criteria was apostolic authorship, none of those writings would qualify. No, the Bible which God saw fit to arrange for us to have is inerrant and authoritative.
I've read many sermons, and many good ones, but none are on the same standing as the Bible. A collection of them, even one of the very best, would fall short of biblical authority. Believing otherwise would be a dangerous error best avoided.
Your questions concerning how the canon of the Bible was arrived at are fantastic questions, and I can help you with this in some degree. For example, I can put your comments regarding "the council" into some context. You're probably referring to three in the fourth century: Nicaea (325), Laodicea (363) and Hippo (393). However, bear in mind that in confirming a specific canon, the councils really did nothing more than confirm what was already nearly universal practice in the churches at large. 21 of the 27 books of the New Testament were already in general circulation and accepted by 100 AD - all except Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, and Revelation. The Muratorian Fragment of 170 AD comes close to matching our current New Testament. Generally speaking, there were four tests to which each book was put at formal council: 1) Was the author an apostle or have a close connection with an apostle? 2) Is the book being accepted by the Body of Christ at large? 3) Did the book contain consistency of doctrine and orthodox teaching? 4) Did the book bear evidence of high moral and spiritual values that would reflect a work of the Holy Spirit?
It might also surprise you to know that if you were to throw away your New Testament, you could reconstruct it - all but about a dozen verses - solely from quotations of it by church leaders in their own writings prior to 200 AD, and most of it prior to 140 AD. All the councils did was put their seal of approval on the long-standing practice of believers throughout the known world, confirming the documents from which the churches were reading in their teaching. This was done because heretics - Arius, for example, who was the reason for the Nicaean council - would exclude books whose clear teaching contradicted theirs, and substituted others (often pseudepigraphical forgeries).
You ask whether Paul, in the Timothy quotation, limited the meaning only to those texts already written. Clearly not, as the New Testament was still being written. Paul did not need to know what other works were still to be written, as long as God knew! Note that Paul already recognized Luke's Gospel as Scripture (see 1Ti 5:18), and Peter likewise already extended the same recognition to Paul (2Pe 3:15-16). As for "later writings that were written by men of God obviously inspired by the Holy Spirit, but were written after the council that decided the Bible," there were no writings after the council that were inspired in the same way that the Biblical text were. The Bible is complete. Doctrinal and general revelation is closed.
Yes, God speaks and teaches today; He will reveal His specific will to a believer to direct him, and He will convict us when we sin and in many other ways speak to us. However, the standard against which that must be measured is the Scripture. Otherwise, we have no way to distinguish what we think is the leading of God from our own subjective, internal feelings. It is for this reason that we have Mormon teachings, Jehovah's Witness teachings, and Jonestown. It is for this reason that we have different groups within the faith taking diametrically opposing views on hot-button issues over what should be the clear and unarguable teaching of the Scriptures. Look at what the Episcopal Church is America is going through. What the full Bible teaches is plain. What you get when you substitute man's own wants and sensibilities for Biblical teaching is that. Either a person accepts Biblical authority and lives accordingly, or he does not.
Your hypothetical of a man who hears the Gospel and believes it is just that - a hypothetical. He will be saved, yes, and God can through circumstances and through His own leading make something good come of it; but without Biblical teaching, look at how much he will miss out on! You say he "has just as much potential to reach his God intended potential," but he in fact has much more potential for becoming entangled in false beliefs and practices - which brings us all the way back to Pablo's teaching from 2Pe 1 and 2. The teaching there is that we are given the Scriptures, which we are to study - not merely read, but study, and internalize and live out - which will then ensure that we do not fall for the false teachers at the beginning of chapter 2. Your hypothetical, in fact, is exactly the reverse of what Pablo's group learned, if you stop and think about it.
Quite to the contrary of your hypothetical, the moral for us, here in a place where Bibles are readily available and inexpensive, is that neglect of God's Word would be both dangerous and inexcusable.
Samdog wrote: You make all of the easy, correct responses to the questions that they apply to, but not the hard and difficult answers to the questions that you might not know the answers to.
Actually, it is easy. Why are you making it harder than it is? It is laid out right there for us.
Samdog wrote: But, please, don't surround your answers with facts and details that most of us know and take up space, and are there more for color.
We need this. A lot of people, DON'T know the obvious. A lot of people need to understand the history of where things came from or what happened. It is probably because most of our bible studies don't cover it. (They are usually filled with more 'questions' and ambiguity than answers.) I BET you anything that most people DON'T know the obvious. Does that make us biblically un-educated? Perhaps...but why should we single-out our brothers and sisters in Christ that way?
And it isn't for color. From what I know of Keith...he's a straight forward kinda guy. He's in it to tell you the truth up front. (Lot's of people can't handle the 'up-front' truth.) I'd rather somebody tell me the truth up front than to use 'color' or questions or beat-around-the-bush when it comes to these things.
Samdog wrote: You get the points for laying it all out there for me, Pablo, Sonia, and a couple other people that read this blog and who already go to church and know all that already.
I'm sorry but that isn't true. I know a lot of people who read these blogs (including the ones mentioned in your statement) that DON'T know "THAT" already. If I am one of them, I'm glad that I learned something today.
Also, blogs should be 'open' for discussion and comments or information. If somebody talks about their toe...is it meaningless? (Because in a way...who cares right?) You open yourself to these things good or bad. Hopefully, we will be able to 'take it' and understand that. If not, maybe a blog isn't a place for the one who isn't able to allow that.
Sam: let's start over again, as friends. I want to apologize; my wasn't anything other than to be thorough, and because I didn't know how much background you do or don't know, I was trying to be complete. If I have misunderstood you, or if I've offended - and clearly I have - then the fault is mine, and I offer you my apology which I hope you'll accept.
I read Pablo's original post first, concerning 2 Peter, heresy, and the uniqueness of the Bible; the first two chapters are a favorite passage of mine as well. Your question - where did it say that the Bible gives us everything we need - was an excellent question, and I offered an answer; I also went back to the original passage, showing Peter's statement that Biblical authority trumps personal experience.
Your response contained valuable questions, and I believe I honored them as such when I quoted them. Because your overall response referred to councils, the canon, and numerous other points, I responded in kind. The only fact you raised with which I had an issue was the point of John's works barely being accepted, and I skipped over that in hopes of avoiding an unnecessary argument; I'd be interested in which specific council and vote you're referencing, because I'm not connecting the dots, but it's not a critical point if you don't wish to include it.
If I read your response rightly (and I hope you'll correct me if I'm wrong), your central question is: whether God speaks today to His followers, and I stick with my answer: "Most assuredly, God the Holy Spirit does speak to and through believers today." I'll even go farther: I affirm that the gift of prophecy is still for our age, and I wish I had that gift. I've prayed for it, and for God to raise up prophets within our church.
If I've left the impression that I treat the Bible as an idol, then I've overstated the case. If is a gift to us from God, but it is not an object of worship. Nor is it to be toted around like a lucky charm or casually read like a mantra; but there are many injunctions to study it diligently and live it.
For believers in lands where there is not yet a translated Bible, that lack is, though not fatal to their faith, surely a shame. If this is a need God is placing on your heart, I'd certainly encourage you in this area, for it's a noble goal to fulfill. Here in a place where God has made it easy to get access to a Bible, we often aren't aware of that lack.
I hope this sets things right between us, and again, I ask your forgiveness -
- Keith
Sam: it looks like we've both crossed in the mail. I think your apology wasn't as needed as mine was, but I'll accept yours gladly if you'll accept mine.
I'll try to be a little less pedantic next time, and a little more thoughtful... thanks again...
- Keith
You may be right to an extent, Samdog, in saying that a blog may not be a place to discuss the more complicated or difficult subjects. Maybe some things are made to be discussed in person. But some things, like the bible for instance is pretty much black and white. If Paul crossed the street. He crossed the street. Why make it more complicated by asking, "Well, why did he cross the street?" Or "When he crossed the street, what would make him cross now instead of next week?" I would come out of a bible study confused if that was all I heard. There is no room for ambiguity like this. Just tell me what the bible says, not what you 'think' or what the group 'thinks' about the passage.
One more thing, this is probably obvious but I personally always benefit from the obvious. I think that anything anybody posts on an email or blog or 'page' will most likely be seen by anyone. Or you just have to 'think' it that way.(That is the reason why I personally choose to be 'real' or 'myself' on these things. I don't want to be seen as a contradiction or fake.)
That is why when these things are open for discussion or comments or rants or even insults, we are all putting ourselves out there for it. Like I said, there are those out there that can't handle it. What's the point then? (As you have technically stated.) If I agree with your points, great...let's discuss. But, if you have a point, and I disagree...then be ready to know my disagreement. Having a blog also means hearing/learning things that may not be very pleasant to hear. Heck, I'd rather you be straightforward than you lie to me just so that we could be 'cool'.
Anyway, my point is that these things are being read and will be read. We've all just got to be sure that we are aware of that. I know I forget sometimes.
(Please forgive me for going a little off subject.)
woah, i should check this thing more often. :)
avoiding the council/canon thing since it's been covered pretty well, i want to address something that sammy said:
The original verse that Pablo quoted from 2 Peter 1:3 said that divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. God knows exactly what that man needs, and because that man believes and has faith that God will provide all of his needs, God will. God isn't going to give that person less of what he needs just because he doesn't have a Bible translated into his language yet.
This is important I think. I agree with you Samdog, that God would find a way to give people what they need outside the Bible if needed. I believe that God would reach out in another way, like it mantions in Romans 1:20 (we are without excuse)
For centuries, people did not have the Bible in their native tounges. I watched "Luther" recently and the movie spent a lot of time on the struggle between the Vaitcan and Marting Luther regarding that very topic. But does that mean that God was not speaking to people, or that they could not know/experience God? I don't think so.
It's clear that we are all on the same page (more or less) in defense of the canonized Scripture. But the hypothetical situation of the non-exposed pygmy or whatever...God is still at work for his/her salvation.
Romans 2 is a good passage. It is usually a prooftext for people, but it does offer some insight into this discussion. I think that when it says that "they show that the requirements of the Law are written on their hearts", it is evidence that outside of the Law, God still speaks to us and gives us everything we need.
For those of us that have the Scriptures (even packaged in a nice hardcover in a canvas bag with a fishy on it), we should consider ourselves fortunate that we have more explanations and examples from which to base our lives. But I rejoice for the brother or sister in the sticks that knows God intimately in spite of its absence.
In fact, in some ways, I envy them.
Modern society argues over and over about things that don't matter. That dude in the sticks just lives and worships...
By no means am I saying that I wish I didn't have the Scripture, I love it. I just wish we could all learn to love the Scripture and not get caught up on meaningless debates...myself included.
also, regarding the "what if god still spoke to people and they wrote it down" thing, i think he definitely could. maybe he has/does...not sure i guess.
what criteria would we use to identify it? how would we decide it it was from God?
that's a tough question.
Darn it, I showed up late for the party again!
My brother works with the International Orality Network. Some of you know that for many, many years he worked for The Jesus Film organization. When The Jesus Film organization realized there were many, many, many people in our world that are not literate, have no written language and thus no means of having a written Bible (without creating an alphabet and written vocabulary and teaching it to a people group), the Oral Bible project was born. Several organizations began independently and unbeknown to each other (at the independent prompting of the Holy Spirit) to start such an endeavor. Then these organizations began to discover each other and decided to collaborate rather than compete and duplicate (more evidence of the Holy Spirit at work, I presume?).
All that to say, there are many believers in our world today with no written language, no Bible, and no Bible possible in their lifetime. God is taking care of teaching them. One way he is doing that is through the Oral Bible project. You really should check it out. But there are many believers that will die before a written or even very incomplete oral Bible is available to them.
Another similar (and really, really worthwhile) blog post and ensuing discussion to this original post and this ensuing discussion can be found HERE. You will like some of it and dislike some of it no matter who you are, but it is worth your time, I assure you.
And Trazom, I commend you for your well articulated and solid input into this discussion.
the humanity of the document somes through in the practical and simple things. like when it says that jesus cried when lazarus died. these are the words of the author. in those instances, i wouldn't say that god dictated words like he did to moses with the ten commandments. that was a little different. when we say the word of god, i would say that there are those that believe that god dictated those words, and others that would argue that god inspired those people to write what they did. in other words, did god tell paul to write in his letter to timothy (i think) to bring his coat next time he comes? probably not. but the meanings, intentions, and teachings of the bible were inspired and protected by the holy spirit then as they are now.
what makes the bible also a historical document is that it references people, places and events in history that can be corroborated. a lot of that stuff could even be considered science...
maybenot science per se, but could support science.
<< Home