Killer Quote

Tur8infan at Pros Apologian offered up a great quote by Augustine, which strikes me as applicable to recent discussions I've had, though I'm sure it wasn't his intent:

If the Manichees were willing to discuss the hidden meaning of these words in a spirit of reverent inquiry rather than of captious fault-finding, then they would of course not be Manichees, but as they asked it would be given them, as they sought they would find, as they knocked it would be opened up to them. The fact is, you see, people who have a genuine religious interest in learning put far more questions about this text than these irrelegious wretches; but the difference between them is that the former seek in order to find, while the latter are at no pains at all to do anything except not to find what they are seeking.

- Augustine, On Genesis: A Refutation of the Manichees, Book II, Chapter 2, Section 3

You know, I've had Augustine's Confessions and, I think, The City of God on my shelves for some few years, but have never found time to read them. I'll have to work harder on that.

For Those Curious About the Bible and Homosexuality

For some reason--notably a federal judge's decision on the subject--homosexuality and homosexual "marriage" have been hot topics lately. More than a few might be wondering, "Just exactly what does the Bible say on this subject?" And there are certainly some that ought to be digging a little deeper into the subject before sounding off on it, people whose understanding of it appears to be, shall we say, less than fully thought-out. An excellent place to begin is James White's The Same Sex Controversy.

I thought about writing a brief piece about this (of course, just about anything in the blogosphere is necessarily brief), but then, thinking of Dr. White's book, I recalled seeing something on Dr. White's website a few years ago, and wondered if it was still there. It is. It is the transcript of Dr. White debating the Rev. Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State on the subject of "Is Homosexuality Compatible with Authentic Christianity?". It is sufficiently complete that it renders any additional verbiage from moi quite unnecessary, and I recommend it highly for anyone looking for a brief introduction to the subject.

Really. If you seriously want to know, read it. And don't just skim it and claim you read the whole thing, either. Most of the questions people typically bring up on this subject are actually answered in that debate, so if you really seriously want to know, you have no excuse for not reading it. If you don't want to do the little bit of work involved in reading so small a thing as a debate transcript, I don't know how you can tell yourself that you have an informed opinion on the subject.

Only So Many Moves on the Chessboard

---

This is an old post from a previous blogging incarnation.

---

Francis Schaeffer once said that when it comes to the really big questions, there are really very few available answers. For example, when it comes to the question of whether or not there is a God, there are really only three possible answers: yes, no, and maybe.

Another such question is that of Biblical inerrancy. Does the Bible have errors in it? As far as I can tell, the available answers are yes, no, and maybe. The word "inerrant" doesn't really give you any other options or leave you any wiggle room. That is intentional; it is why that word came into common use.

You see, despite much blathering by some to the effect that inerrancy is a doctrine invented by evangelicals in the second half of the 20th century, the reality is that the concept that the Bible is without error has been around for a long, long time. It's just that they used to use the word "infallible." That is, it was said that Scripture is infallible, with the idea that error is a failure being part and parcel of that concept. To get a better grasp of this, think of what Catholics mean when they say that the Pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra: they mean that he is incapable of speaking error to the church. It would be ludicrous for the Catholic to say that he believes that an ex cathedra pronouncement is simultaneously incapable of failure (infallible) and mistaken (errant). In the same way, Scripture was said for centuries to be infallible with few--if any--having the cheek even to think that this might not mean that it was free from error.

Eventually, though, a new school of thought arose. Some people began to say that they thought the Bible had mistakes in it, but that they nevertheless thought it infallible in that it would never fail to accomplish its purpose. This presented some problems in that a person using this sort of language could now present himself as a believer in infallibility when the reality might be that he believed the Bible was littered with all sorts of errors.

Now, what's the natural response to that, once you become aware of what is going on? You try to clarify what you mean, at least on your end of the discussion. It seems that it was in this way that evangelicals came to use the "infallible and inerrant" phrase that is now the standard in so many statements of faith. It also had the effect of pinning people down--something that theological liberals generally hate with a purple passion. "Infallible" might leave you some wiggle room when trying to get on board at a seminary, pastorate, or local Christian school. "Inerrant" does not. Naturally, therefore, the term has been under ceaseless attack since it came into vogue, for there are plenty of people who would love to pastor your church or teach in your Christian school without having to lie when they sign that institution's statement of faith.

You might be asking, "Well, MOTW, why are your shorts in a twist about this?" It's because of its relationship to the doctrine of inspiration (Paul says that all Scripture is breathed out--inspired--by God; Peter says that no prophet spoke on his own, but that they were carried along by the Holy Spirit). Again, there are only so many viable answers, only so many moves on the chessboard. When you deny inerrancy, when you say that the Bible has mistakes in it, what are you saying about inspiration?

You are saying either that some or all of the Bible isn't really inspired by God, that is, that some or all of the Bible isn't really God's Word, or you are saying that God made mistakes in the Bible. Despite some very impressive rhetorical sleight-of-hand surrounding the issue, that really is what it comes down to.

Some of you are thinking, "But MOTW! The doctrine of inerrancy only applies to the autographs (original documents, for those of you who don't spend your lives immersed in such minutia) and we don't have those anymore." True enough. However, the objection is made with but one object: to suggest, imply, or say outright that the Bible as we have it today is so riddled with copyist errors that we cannot possibly know what the originals said. If that is your objection to inerrancy, I wish you would get your terms straight, for what is really going on is that you are arguing against textual reliability (the idea that the text has been accurately enough copied over the centuries for us to know what the originals said) and hoping to raise doubt concerning inerrancy in the minds of the unlearned and unwary. That is not fair; textual reliability and inerrancy are separate issues.

But even as regards the legitimacy of objections to textual reliability, I would say that archaeology and the science of textual criticism have made absolute hash of them. By the standards ordinarily applied to any ancient document, the text of the Bible has been established to an astonishing degree, far exceeding that of any other ancient document in the world. We are far more certain of the text of the Bible than we are of Caesar's writings or of Aristotle's, for example. Indeed, the text is so well established that I suspect that one reason inerrancy is so frequently attacked is that those who attack the Bible's textual reliability teeter on the edge of forfeiting their credibility entirely.

So, what move are you going to make? You know that the Bible is an accurate copy of the original documents. You know that the Bible claims to be breathed out by God Himself, in fact, to be the very word of God.

Will you say that the Bible isn't really the word of God, that all or parts of it are the work of mere men? Will you say that God wrote it but that He made some mistakes in doing so? Or will you say that the Bible really is the word of God and that He got it right?

Actually, I suppose that there is one more move available: you could just shrug your shoulders and say, "So what? So what if the Bible is infallible and inerrant? I'm not, so how can I honestly say that I know what it says?"

Well, I find your concern for honesty touching, but if you expect to seriously make the case that your human fallibility leaves you incapable of knowing what the Bible says but doesn't leave you incapable of knowing what the Oklahoma State Driver's Manual says, or what the directions on your box of instant oatmeal say, or what the Constitution of the United States says, or even what this little blog-post says, all I can say is, "Good luck with that one." You're gonna need it.

Martin Luther on Scripture

---

(All of this quoted from Luther's reply to Erasmus' Diatribe. Not my own material. Hope you enjoy it.)

---

Now I come to another point, which is linked with this. You divide Christian doctrines into two classes, and make out that we need to know the one but not the other. 'Some,' you say, 'are recondite, whereas others are quite plain.' Surely at this point you are either playing tricks with someone else's words, or practising a literary effect! However, you quote in your support Paul's words in Rom.11: 'O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God!' (v.33); and also Isa. 40: 'Who gave help to the Spirit of the Lord, or who hath been his cousellor?' (v.13). It was all very easily said, either because you knew that you were writing, not just to Luther, but for the world at large, or else because you failed to consider that it was against Luther that you were writing! I hope you credit Luther with some little scholarship and judgment where the sacred text is concerned? If not, behold! I will wring the admission out of you! Here is my distinction (for I too am going to do a little lecturing--or chop a little logic, should I say?): God and His Scripture are two things, just as the Creator and His creation are two things. Now, nobody questions that there is a great deal hid in God of which we know nothing. Christ himself says of the last day: 'Of that day knoweth no man, but the Father' (Matt. 24-36); and in Acts I he says: 'It is not for you to know the times and seasons' (v 7); and again, he says: 'I know whom I have chosen' (John 13. 18); and Paul says: 'The Lord knoweth them that are his' (2 Tim. 2.19); and the like. But the notion that in Scripture some things are recondite and all is not plain was spread by the godless Sophists (whom now you echo, Erasmus)--who have never yet cited a single item to prove their crazy view; nor can they. And Satan has used these unsubstantial spectres to scare men off reading the sacred text, and to destroy all sense of its value, so as to ensure that his own brand of poisonous philosophy reigns supreme in the church. I certainly grant that many passages in the Scriptures are obscure and hard to elucidate, but that is due, not to the exalted nature of their subject, but to our own linguistic and grammatical ignorance; and it does not in any way prevent our knowing all the contents of Scripture. For what solemn truth can the Scriptures still be concealing, now that the seals are broken, the stone rolled away from the door of the tomb, and that greatest of all mysteries brought to light--that Christ, God's Son, became man, that God is Three in One, that Christ suffered for us, and will reign for ever? And are not these things known, and sung in our streets? Take Christ from the Scriptures--and what more will you find in them? You see, then, that the entire content of the Scriptures has now been brought to light, even though some passages which contain unknown words remain obscure. Thus it is unintelligent, and ungodly too, when you know that the contents of Scripture are as clear as can be, to pronounce them obscure on account of those few obscure words. If words are obscure in one place, they are clear in another. What God has so plainly declared to the world is in some parts of Scripture stated in plain words, while in other parts it still lies hidden under obscure words. But when something stands in broad daylight, and a mass of evidence for it is in broad daylight also, it does not matter whether there is any evidence for it in the dark. Who will maintain that the town fountain does not stand in the light because the people down some alley cannot see it, while everyone in the square can see it?

There is nothing, then, in your remark about the 'Corycian cavern'; matters are not so in the Scriptures. The profoundest mysteries of the supreme Majesty are no more hidden away, but are now brought out of doors and displayed to public view. Christ has opened our understanding, that we might understand the Scriptures, and the Gospel is preached to every creature. 'Their sound is gone out into all lands; (Ps. 19.4). 'All things that are written, are written for our instruction' (Rom. 15.4). Again: 'All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for instruction' (2 Tim. 3.16). Come forward, then, you, and all the Sophists with you, and cite a single mystery which is still obscure in the Scripture. I know that to many people a great deal remains obscure; but that is due, not to any lack of clarity in Scripture, but to their own blindness and dullness, in that they make no effort to see truth which, in itself, could not be plainer. As Paul said of the Jews in 2 Cor. 4: 'The veil remains on their heart' (2 Cor. 4.3-4). They are like men who cover their eyes, or go from daylight into darkness, and hide there, and then blame the sun, or the darkness of the day, for their inability to see. So let wretched men abjure that blasphemous perversity which would blame the darkness of their own hearts on to the plain Scriptures of God!

When you quote Paul's statement, 'his judgments are incomprehensible,' you seem to take the pronoun 'his' to refer to Scripture; whereas the judgments which Paul there affirms to be incomprehensible are not those of Scripture, but those of God. And Isaiah 40 does not say: 'who has known the mind of Scripture? but: 'who has known the mind of the Lord?' (Paul, indeed, asserts that Christians do know the mind of the Lord; but only with reference to those things that are given to us by God, as he there says in 1 Cor. 2 (v. 12)). You see, then, how sleepily you examined those passages, and how apt is your citation of them--as apt as are almost all your citations for 'free-will'! So, too, the examples of obscurity which you allege in that rather sarcastic passage are quite irrelevant--the distinction of persons in the Godhead, the union of the Divine and human natures of Christ, and the unpardonable sin. Here, you say, are problems which have never been solved. If you mean this of the enquiries which the Sophists pursue when they discuss these subjects, what has the inoffensive Scripture done to you, that you should blame such criminal misuse of it on to its own purity? Scripture makes the straightforward affirmation that the Trinity, the Incarnation and the unpardonable sin are facts. There is nothing obscure of ambiguous about that. You imagine that the Scripture tells us how they are what they are; but it does not, nor need we know. It is here that the Sophists discuss their dreams; keep your criticism and condemnation for them, but acquit the Scriptures! If, on the other hand, you mean of the facts themselves, I say again: blame, not the Scriptures, but the Arians and those to whom the Gospel is hid, who, by reason of the working of Satan, their god, cannot see the plainest proofs of the Trinity in the Godhead and of the humanity of Christ.

In a word: The perspicuity of Scripture is twofold, just as there is a double lack of light. The first is external, and relates to the ministry of the Word; the second concerns the knowledge of the heart. If you speak of internal perspicuity, the truth is that nobody who has not the Spirit of God sees a jot of what is in the Scriptures. All men have their hearts darkened, so that, even when they can discuss and quote all that is in Scripture, they do not understand or really know any of it. They do not believe in God, nor do they believe that they are God's creatures, nor anything else--as Ps. 13 puts it, 'The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God' (Ps. 14.1). The Spirit is needed for the understanding of all Scripture and every part of Scripture. If, on the other hand, you speak of external perspicuity, the position is that nothing whatsoever is left obscure or ambiguous, but all that is in the Scripture is through the Word brought forth into the clearest light and proclaimed to the whole world.

And in another section:

But because we have been so long persuaded of the opposite, by that pestilent dictum of the Sophists, that the Scriptures are obscure and equivocal, we are compelled to begin by proving this very first principle of ours, by which all else must be proved (a procedure which to philosophers would seem irrational and impossible!).

First, Moses says in Deut. 17 (v.8) that, if a difficult matter comes into judgment, men must go to the place which God has chosen for His name, and there consult the priests, who are to judge it according to the law of the Lord. 'According to the law of the Lord,' he says; but how will they thus judge, if the law of the Lord is not, externally, as clear as can be, so that they may be satisfied about it? Else it would have been enough to say: 'according to their own spirit!' Why, under any and every government all issues between all parties are settled by the laws. But how could they be settled if the laws were not perfectly clear, and were truly as lights among the people? If the laws were equivocal and uncertain, not only would no issues be settled, but no sure standards of conduct would exist. It is for this very reason that laws are enacted, that conduct may be regulated to a definite code and disputes may find settlement. It is necessary, therefore, that that which is to be the measure and yardstick for others, as the law is, should be much clearer and more certain than anything else. If laws need to be luminous and definite in secular societies, where only temporal issues are concerned, and such laws have in fact been bestowed by Divine bounty upon all the world, how should He not give to Christians, His own people and His elect, laws and rules of much greater clarity and certainty by which to adjust and settle themselves and all issues between them? For He wills that His people should not set store by temporal things! 'If God so clothe the grass of the field, which to-day is, and to-morrow is cast into the oven,' how much more us (cf. Matt. 6.30)? But let us go on, and overwhelm this pestilent saying of the Sophists with passages of Scripture.

Ps. 18 (Ps. 19.8) says: 'The commandment of the Lord is clear (or pure), enlightening the eyes.' I am sure that what enlightens the eyes is neither obscure nor equivocal!

Again, Ps. 118 (Ps. 119.130) says: 'The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding to babes.' Here it says of God's words, that they are an entrance, something open, which is plainly set before all and enlightens even babes.

Isa.8 (v. 20) despatches all questions 'to the law and to the testimony,' and threatens that unless we comply the light of dawn must be denied us.

In Zech. 2 (Mal. 2.7), God commands that they should seek the law from the mouth of the priest; 'for he is the messenger of the Lord of Hosts.' But what a fine messenger and spokesman from God would he be, who should deliver messages that were unclear to himself and obscure to the people, so that he did not know what he was saying, nor they what they were hearing!

And what is more commonly said in praise of Scripture through, the whole Old Testament, especially in the 118th Psalm (Ps. 119), than that it is in itself a most clear, sure light? That Psalm makes mention of its clearness in these words 'Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my paths' (v. 105). The Psalmist does not say: 'thy Spirit alone is a lamp unto my feet,' though he assigns to the Spirit His part when he says: 'thy good spirit shall lead me into the land of uprightness' (Ps. 143.10). Thus Scripture is called a way and a path, doubtless by reason of its entire certainty.

Come to the New Testament. Paul says in Rom. 1 that the gospel was promised 'by the prophets in the holy scriptures' (v.2), and in the third chapter that the righteousness of faith was 'testified by the law and the prophets' (v. 21). But what sort of testifying is it, if it is obscure? Yet throughout all his epistles Paul depicts the gospel as a word of light, a gospel of clarity, and makes this point with great fulness in 2 Cor. 3 and 4, where he treats of the perspicuity of both Moses and Christ in a very exalted manner.

Peter says in 2 Pet. 1: 'We have a most sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place' (v. 19). Here Peter makes the Word of God to be a bright lamp, all else being darkness. Should we then make obscurity and darkness out of the Word?

Christ repeatedly calls Himself 'the light of the world' (cf. John 8.12, 9.5) and John the Baptist 'a burning and a shining light' (John 5.35). This, doubtless, was not on account of the holiness of his life, but by reason of his word. So Paul calls the Thessalonians shining lights of the world, because, he says, 'you hold forth the word of life' (Phil. 2.15-16). For life without the word is unsure and dark.

And what are the apostles doing when they prove what they preach by the Scriptures? Is it that they want to hide their own darkness under greater darkness? Are they trying to prove what is better known by what is less well known? What is Christ doing when in John 5 he teaches the Jews to 'search the Scriptures,' because they testify of Him (v. 39)? Did he want to make them uncertain about faith in Himself? What were those mentioned in Acts 17 doing, who, after hearing Paul, read the Scriptures night and day to see 'whether those things were so' (v. 11)? Does not all this prove that the apostles, like Christ Himself, appealed to Scripture as the clearest witness to the truth of what they were saying? With what conscience, then, do we make them to be obscure?

Tell me, are these words of Scripture obscure or equivocal: 'God created the heavens and the earth' (Gen. 1.1): 'the Word as made flesh' (John 1.14): and all the other items which the whole world has received as articles of faith? Whence were they received? Surely, from the Scriptures! What do preachers to-day do? They expound and proclaim the Scriptures! But if the Scripture they proclaim is obscure, who will assure us that their proclamation is dependable? Shall there be a further new proclamation to assure us? But who will make that proclamation? (At this rate we shall go on ad infinitum!)

In a word: if Scripture is obscure or equivocal, why need it have been brought down to us by act of God? Surely we have enough obscurity and uncertainty within ourselves, without our obscurity and uncertainty and darkness being augmented from heaven! And how then shall the apostle's word stand: 'All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction?' (2 Tim. 3.16). No, no, Paul, you are altogether unprofitable; such blessings as you ascribe to Scripture must be sought from the fathers, who have found acceptance down the long line of the ages, and from the see of Rome. You must revoke the judgment which you express when you write to Titus that a bishop should be mighty in sound doctrine, to exhort, and convince gainsayers, and stop the mouths of vain talkers and deceitful teachers (Tit. 1.9f); for how shall he be mighty, when you leave him Scriptures that are obscure--arms of tow, and feeble straws for a sword? Christ, too, must needs revoke the words in which he falsely promises us: 'I will give you a mouth and wisdom which all your adversaries shall not be able to resist' (Luke 21.15). For they are bound to resist, when we fight them with mere uncertainties and obscurities! And why do you, Erasmus, draw up an outline of Christianity for us, if the Scriptures are obscure to you?

I am sure that I have already made myself burdensome, even to slow-witted readers, by dwelling so long and spending so much strength on a point that is as clear as can be. But I had to do it in order to overthrow that shameless blasphemy that the Scriptures are obscure; so that even you, my good Erasmus, might see what you are saying when you deny that Scripture is clear. In the same breath you ought to be telling me that all those saints whom you quote must needs be much less clear; for who gives us information about the light that was in them, if you make the Scriptures to be obscure? Those who deny the perfect clarity and plainness of the Scriptures leave us nothing but darkness.

Here you may say: all this is nothing to me. I do not say that the Scriptures are obscure at every point (who would be such a fool as to say that?), but just on this point, and on those like it. I reply: my remarks are not aimed at you only, but at all who hold such views. Against you particularly, I would say of the whole of Scripture that I do not allow any part of it to be called obscure. There stands within it the statement which we quoted from Peter, that the word of God is to us a lamp shining in a dark place. If part of the lamp does not shine, then it is a part of the dark place rather than of the lamp! When he enlightened us, Christ did not intend that part of His Word should be left obscure to us, for He commands us to mark the Word; and this command is pointless if the Word is not clear.

With the Usual Disclaimer...

That "usual disclaimer" being that I don't agree with every jot and tittle of what Wade Burleson writes. There, now that that's out of the way...

I read this post with interest, and if you have any interest in Christian giving, you might find it interesting, too. The upshot, as far as I am concerned, is that Wade Burleson has said out loud in a widely-read forum what an awful lot of Bible-reading folks have long thought, but not said out loud, for fear of the looks they will get, or being preached at by certain people:

There is no command in Scripture for Christians to give a certain percentage of their income.

You heard me. None. There are plenty of commands to give generously, joyfully, as led by the Spirit, proportionately, and so forth, but there are no commands given as to a specific percentage, nor even as to where it's supposed to go.

I know an awful lot of you have grown up in churches where tithing--and contrary to one well-meaning-person-I-know's assertions, tithing does specifically refer to ten percent, not "regular on-going giving"--has been taught for decades. Many of you have read your Bibles over and over, and when you casually give thought to what you hear from the pulpit on the subject of giving from time to time, the thought has crept into the back of your head that something doesn't quite add up...

You're right. Again, there is no command in Scripture for Christians to give a specific percentage of their income. You do not have to take my word for it. Get yourself some Bible software--you can go to E-Sword and get some for free (you can even get the ESV for free with it), and do the searches. Look for "tithe," "tithing," "tenth," and "giving," and anything else you care to look up. You will find plenty of instructions for Jews to tithe (and even that tithing was handled and carried out considerably different from what you might have been led to believe), but you will not find one command for the Christian to do that.

You will say, "But MOTW, I've heard all my life that we're supposed to tithe. If there's no such command, where do preachers get that?"

I wish I knew. I've never, ever heard an argument from Scripture that didn't torture it in the process of being made. Usually, preachers argue from some instance in the Old Testament and then tell you that they've found "a principle" in the Old Testament about tithing.

Mark it well: when a preacher tells you that he's discovered "a principle" to which he wants to hold you accountable, it usually means his case from Scripture is weak.

Don't assume from this that I think Christians shouldn't give, and give generously. That's not the case. I just don't see the point in trying to hold them accountable to a command that simply does not exist.

A Loose Collection of Thoughts on Bible Reading

My father sent me a fifty for my upcoming birthday (don't ask--"older than dirt" is quite close enough), and, as I had been planning to do for a few months, I promptly spent the bulk of it on what will probably be the last Bible I ever buy, unless I surprise myself and get good enough at Greek to justify buying a combination Septuagint and New Testament in that language.

If you clicked on the link, you probably noticed it's not a study Bible. I've had several, but I quit using them a long time ago. They have their advantages--mainly, it's kind of like carrying a one-volume commentary around with you. They also have their disadvantages--mainly that it's kind of like carrying a one-volume commentary around with you. Usually, a one-volume commentary by one guy, or one committee. There's a certain potential for bias in the notes, and sometimes I think people vest more authority in the notes than is wise. The text is inspired, the notes are not.

I long ago gradually built up a set of The Expositor's Bible Commentaries so that I'd have something on the shelf on every book of the Bible, for the sake of preparing Sunday School lessons. I've also added other commentaries on individual books of the Bible. There is probably more commentary material on my shelves than I'm going to be able to read in my lifetime, unless I suffer the misfortune of a crippling illness or accident. Having a study Bible seems kind of redundant at this point. Not knocking them. If you don't see yourself picking up a shelf full of commentaries, they're just fine.

I've read several different translations over the years. The original preface to the venerable King James Version, which is seldom, if ever, printed in today's copies of the KJV, advised the reader to read the Scriptures in several translations

...varietie of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures...

which, contrary to some very ill-informed assertions, are remarkably well preserved, easily exceeding the degree of preservation of most (I almost say "all" but don't wish to spend half a day finding and linking to articles to back me up) other ancient documents--and I have taken that advice. Off the top of my head, I've read the KJV, the New King James, the New American Standard, the New International Version, the Berkeley Version, the Revised version (to the best of my recollection), the Phillips translation of the New Testament, parts of the Living Bible, the NET Bible, and the English Standard Version. There may have been--actually, I'm pretty sure there are--others that I've forgotten.

Each of these has its pluses and minuses, and for the most part, I don't knock anyone for choosing one or the other. Having been through the process, I still think it's a good idea to read several translations. If it weren't for the eyestrain factor, I'd say that using one of the parallel editions that has more than one translation side-by-side is the best way to go.

The NET Bible is quite a decent translation in very modern English. The translators' notes--there are more than sixty thousand--give an enormous quantity of detail as to the original-language texts behind the translation and the translators' reasons for choosing the translations they did, as well as alternate translations. In many respects, I think it is the "winner" out of all these translations.

But I like the ESV best. It is really a thorough update of the Revised Standard Version, which in turn was an updated King James. The ESV is a very literal translation that retains much of the classic feel of the KJV and is very "readable," which is what people say when they're trying to find a polite way to say that the New American Standard, which is often touted as the most literal translation, is a little wooden. As I've noted before, the ESV is also what all the cool Reformed guys are reading these days.

I don't have a big axe to grind when it comes to "more literal" or "less literal" translations. That may be because I've read so many. Despite people who protest otherwise, the translations really do all say the same thing: there is a God, you are (me too!), by nature and by choice, in rebellion against Him and deserve to be punished in a very real lake of fire for eternity, and the only way "out" is to change your mind about yourself, to agree with God that you really are guilty before Him, that the way you've lived your life is altogether filthy in His eyes, to turn from your own way of "making it" and to accept the eternal life that can be yours if and when you put your trust in the only provision He has made, the sacrifice of His Son, Jesus Christ, on your behalf, who proved who He was and His fitness to serve as a sinless sacrifice when He rose from the dead. You aren't worthy to enter eternal life, only He is--but when you put your faith, the faith itself being a gift of God, in Him, His righteousness is counted as though it were yours, your rebellion is pardoned, and you begin a life-long process of being conformed to His image. All the translations say that. I know, 'cause I've read them. They don't say it in one run-on sentence, like I did, but that's what they say.

Like I say, I like the ESV best, and I've been hankering for an edition that will be easy to read as I continue--well, hopefully, anyway--to age. Also, I wanted big, wide margins for making notes. I've tried keeping notes in a separate journal before. It doesn't work for me. I like making my notes and recording my thoughts in my Bible, and seeing them again and again as I make repeated trips through the text. I typically read four chapters in the Old Testament and two in the New on a daily basis. I say "typically," not "slavishly." That pace generally has me going through the New Testament about twice for every one time through the Old, and through the whole just a bit more than once per year. This edition has nice, big type, nice, big margins, and is what they call "Smyth-sewn," meaning the pages of the book are sewn together, like they did in the old days, and barring some sort of disaster, this copy and the notes I will make should very probably last me the rest of my days. No, it's not genuine leather, but the cover in which I carry my Bible is, so I never see and feel the actual cover anyway...

Hopefully, my children will be interested enough in my notes to fight over which one gets to keep my copy!

Not really. If they're really interested, I'm sure one of them will go to the trouble of transcribing my notes for the others.

Hey, I can dream!

An Eighth Quote from The Truth War

We sometimes tend to think of the early church as pristine, pure, and untroubled by serious error. The truth is, it wasn't that way at all.

The good doctor ain't kiddin'.

I recently engaged in a fairly lengthy discussion with a fellow who repeatedly tried to prove his point from the practice of the early church. My response to that, in part, was that I didn't think the practice of the early church was authoritative. The church, after all, hadn't even seen the canon close before falling into serious error. You can see that just from 1 Corinthians and Revelation. Why on earth anyone would think their practice authoritative for our faith and practice quite escapes me. The one reliable guide is Holy Writ.

I mean, one of the early church authorities he cited had actually castrated himself, thinking that he was following the injunction to cut your hand off if it causes you to sin. That kind of thinking is your guide to faith and practice?

The reality is that the early church rapidly fell into error. The church is always prone to error. But God isn't, and neither is what He has said. It is our task to understand and apply what He has said, not to canonize the practice of fallible, albeit earlier, human beings.

A Third Quote from The Truth War

Scripture says, for example, that the cardinal truths concerning God, His power, His glory, and His righteousness are naturally known to all people through creation and conscience (Romans 1:19-20; 2:14-16). That truth is adequately clear and sufficient to leave the entire human race "without excuse" (Romans 1:20). All those who are condemned in the final judgment will be held responsible for rejecting whatever truth was available to them. The fact that a just and righteous God holds both unbelievers and believers alike responsible for obedience to His revelation is irrefutable proof that He has made the truth sufficiently clear for us. To claim that the Bible is not sufficiently clear is to assault God's own wisdom and integrity.

In short, you can't really claim that God inspired Scripture, that He used men as men use pens, and claim that it's not sufficiently clear without saying that you think God is stupid or a trickster.

Almost a Sure Sign of Not Paying Attention

Wade Burleson wrote a post the other day about "Baptist Identity" folks' position on alcohol. In case you didn't know, they're against it.

Wade went to some trouble to point out that his issue--well, let him explain it:

I am not writing about the pros or cons of total abstinence. The point of this post is that all of us must resist the easy temptation of equating our personal beliefs regarding tertiary matters on par with obedience to Christ, and demanding others comply with our views.

In other words, for him the bigger issue is not so much alchohol as it is whether or not we are going to allow some Baptists to so define their personal convictions, some of which are difficult to prove from Scripture, as one and the same as core Christian (or at least Baptist) beliefs.

That's a valid concern, and I appreciate Wade's ongoing efforts to point out this sort of thing when he sees it.

For me, though, when I see the subject of alcohol come up in a Baptist context, I almost can't help but just roll my eyes. It is really an effort of will not to do it in front of some people at church. I have this reaction because while I have often heard from some Baptists that Christians should not drink, I have yet to hear any argument made for the position that didn't make my head spin.

(Let me note, for those who have already made up their minds that I am a chronic drunk, that I hardly ever drink. Got better things to do with my money, now and for the foreseeable future.)

I can't tell you the number of times that I have run across people who are utterly convinced that every time "wine" is spoken of negatively in Scripture, it really does mean "wine," but every time it's not--like in the second chapter of John, where Jesus turns vats of water into top-quality wine--it's "grape juice." That's bad enough, but it's not what gets my goat most of all.

What really gets my goat on the subject, and convinces me that people, often including ministers of the Gospel, have their minds made up in advance of the facts, is the continual misquoting of these two verses:

Romans 14:21

It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble.

1 Corinthians 8:13

Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.

Unbelievable as it may sound, I hardly ever hear these verses quoted correctly. What I almost always hear is:

Romans 14:21

It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that (might) cause your brother to stumble.

1 Corinthians 8:13

Therefore, if food (might) make my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.

This verbal legerdemain is resorted to when someone (Only God knows who... :) ) points out that there isn't actually any command anywhere in Scripture for the Christian to abstain from alchohol, only to avoid drunkenness. The idea is pressed to mean that because someone, somewhere in the Body of Christ might see or hear of you having a drink, and might be pushed beyond the limits of their self-control and stumble into violating their own conscience or into outright drunkenness, it is therefore incumbent on Christians everywhere to totally abstain.

But that's not, as any who care to read it can see for themselves, what the verses actually say. There is no "might" in there. We're not talking about a potentiality; we're talking about someone we know, someone who has apparently demonstrated a problem in a given area. And frankly, I have never, ever run across someone quoting these verses who would or could point out someone like that. Their concern is always, without exception, for some hypothetical Christian somewhere...else.

And it's a certainty you'll never hear anyone use these verses to argue that Baptists shouldn't eat meat, or that Baptist women shouldn't wear jeans, etc., etc., etc., even though the argumentation would be pretty much identical. It's the worst kind of selective hearing.

Pheh. Every time I hear this stuff, I see it as almost a sure sign that someone's not paying attention. And I frankly don't want people who aren't paying all that much attention deciding for me what being a Baptist is.

Carry on, Brother Wade...

A Simple Look at Sola Scriptura

I once wrote:

...we see rejection of Sola Scriptura as the enthronement of whatever one feels as truth.

The reaction to that was simply stunning to me. While in retrospect I suppose that it would have been better to change "truth" in that sentence to "authoritative," in general the post seemed pretty clear, and the reaction thereto firmly convinced me of something I'd already been thinking: that some people are so determined to argue that what I write has only the most tangential relationship to what they read. I suppose, then, that what follows will be horribly misread by some people, but I'm going to take the chance anyway because too many people seem not to know what we mean when we say that the Bible is our final authority. I can't speak for others, but when I speak this way, I am usually referring either directly or indirectly to the Reformation principle of Sola Scriptura. There seems to be a lot of confusion about this these days, and--may God help us all--I am going to try to clear some of it up. I'm not claiming to be an expert or that my opinion on the subject carries any sort of official weight whatsoever. I am merely in hopes that some may find this useful.

What is Sola Scriptura? It is the principle that scripture alone--the Bible--is authoritative for faith and practice. That's it. James White says in the introduction to Scripture Alone:

The title of this work is Scripture Alone. Just as the phrase faith alone (sola fide, the great cry of the Reformation, though no longer the great cry of many who were once considered children of the Reformation) is often misrepresented, so too Scripture Alone could be misunderstood. When we say that faith alone brings justification, we are not saying that faith should be considered in a vacuum, separated from everything else God does in the the work of salvation. Instead, sola fide means that faith, apart from any concept of merit or works (actually in opposition thereto), is the sole means of justification. In the same way, Scripture alone does not mean that God zoomed by planet earth, dropped off the Scriptures, and left us on our own. As we will note when we define sola scriptura, this is not a claim, for instance, that there is no church or that there is no Spirit. The title does not suggest that Scripture, apart from the Spirit, outside the church, is God's only means of leading His people. It is, however, saying that Scripture is utterly unique in its nature as God-breathed revelation (nothing else is God-breathed); it is unparalleled and absolute in its authority; and it is the sole infallible rule of faith for the church. It is both a positive statement, asserting the supremacy and uniqueness of the Word, and a negative one, denying the existence of any other rule of authority on the same level. One would be dreadfully misunderstanding this book's title to think it supports the idea of a Christian absenting himself from the body of Christ, rejecting biblical teaching about elders and leaders, and perpetually sitting under a tree somewhere alone with the Bible.

Sola scriptura is not a statement that God never communicates in ways other than the Bible. It is not a statement that God does not speak through natural phenomena. The heavens declare the glory of God, for example. He makes the winds His messengers. The first chapter of Romans declares that this sort of communication from God is so effective a testimony to His existence that those who will not glorify Him have no excuse.

Sola Scriptura is not a statement that God never speaks audibly. I'm thinking of E.B. Sledge's claim in With the Old Breed (highly recommended, by the way) that in the midst of some of the worst fighting in World War II, he heard an audible voice say, "You will survive the war." Sledge never heard the voice before or after that, yet he went through the rest of the war utterly convinced that he would live. Is it possible that he had a stress-induced hallucination? Sure. Was it possible that he heard the audible voice of God? Sola Scriptura, as a principle, takes no position on the issue.

Sola Scriptura is not a statement that God never communicates through circumstances. I'm thinking of a former boss, very dissatisfied with the business approach his superiors were taking, who prayed and prayed and prayed for guidance as to whether he should go into business for himself--a decision that afforded him greater latitude in ministry to people, by the way. After some time, a whole series of remarkable events happened within, if I recall correctly, 24 hours. Someone offered--unasked--office space and up to eighty thousand dollars in loans. Someone else offered--again, unasked--to serve as an unpaid consultant, a critical step in obtaining a crucial license. Several other things happened; the dominoes all fell into place in about one day, and he concluded, not unreasonably, that God had answered his prayer, saying, "Yes, you are supposed to open this business."

Sola Scriptura is not a statement that there is no good and useful information and teaching in church tradition. It does not, for example, say that it is impossible that Peter was crucified upside-down in Rome.

Sola Scriptura is not a statement that God never communicates through an intense emotional experience. I feel sorry for those who've never experienced what can only be described as a wave of peace that thrills the anxious soul, in response to a heartfelt prayer for guidance, consolation, or direction.

Sola Scriptura is not even a statement that God has never spoken through the casting of the lot--though I can't imagine the circumstances under which I'd recommend the practice!

Sola Scriptura is not a statement that God never speaks through the dreams you have as you slumber peacefully--we hope--in your bed.

Sola Scriptura is not a statement that God never speaks through the church or other believers, or even non-believers (or even a donkey!) Is there a preacher alive who hasn't been told by people in his congregation, "I'm sure God meant that sermon just for me."?

Sola Scriptura is, rather, a statement that the Bible is theopneustos, God-breathed, that God used the human writers of scripture just as a human calligrapher might use a collection of pens, to record exactly what He wanted to reveal to mankind as useful for doctrine, reproof, correction, etc. It is a statement that God does not use these other forms of communication in such a way that the scripture is abrogated, nullified, or "broken" in any way. It is a statement that these other forms of communication are to be tested by the scripture rather than elevated above it as superior revelation. It is the statement that scripture alone is revealed as an authoritative rule of faith and doctrine for the Church.

What does this mean? It means that though God may (note: I did not say will) communicate with you through nature, circumstances, tradition, dreams, emotions, the church, preaching, commentaries, the casting of the lot, Urim and Thummim, or even an audible voice, the church is not responsible to God to shape its belief or practice according to the communication you've received. You may be utterly convinced that God has called you to ministry, for example (and you may well have been), but your "call" is not authoritative for faith and doctrine; the church is not responsible to believe you've been called solely on the basis of your "having a peace about it." The church is only responsible to believe you've been called if you can demonstrate it from Scripture. (Note carefully that I did not say that the church cannot believe you've been called without a Scriptural demonstration, only that they are not responsible to believe it.)

More importantly, in my opinion, it means that your private revelations, traditions, what-have-you, cannot be used to shape or to deny doctrine. You cannot appeal to Tradition and say that all believers are responsible to believe in the Assumption of Mary; you cannot expect the church to believe in Universalism on the basis of an audible voice that you heard and believe to be from God; you cannot teach as doctrine that men should wear a coat and tie to church services because that is the common sentiment amongst church members; the church is not responsible to believe that homosexuality is acceptable because the Spirit has revealed to you that Romans 1 is outdated and culturally biased.

It is curious that the Reformers saw Sola Scriptura as a liberating doctrine, that it liberated them from the suffocating, pretentious, and illicit add-ons to the Faith that had been perpetrated by the Roman church, and that now many see it as something to be rejected because it confines them. They prefer to be able to believe things that aren't found in Scripture (such as Homosexuality is just fine as long as it is in a committed relationship or I know my friend is going to Heaven because I know her and she is a really nice person and no one could be that nice without knowing Jesus or Hell is just something the church uses to control the masses or Carlton Pearson is right and everyone's going to Heaven or You can draw closer to God through Transcendental Meditation or Raja Yoga or It's okay to pray to or worship idols or saints because it draws me closer to God and they act as intermediators between me and Jesus or You can believe that salvation is by works plus faith and still be a Christian) and find it annoying that the church rejects their ideas on the basis that Scripture is authoritative and their personal visions are not. That allowing a multiplicity of personal visions to be considered authoritative for faith and practice would lead to a kind of spiritual enslavement worse than anything they've encountered seems not to occur to them.

Or possibly, just possibly, they want to do the enslaving, at least to the extent of silencing criticism of their positions.

The usual--or at least I've heard it so often that I think of it as "the usual"--objection to sola scriptura is that God is the ultimate authority, not the Bible. I always find this objection completely vacuous; of course God is the ultimate authority; that is why what He says is ultimately authoritative. If you want to tell me that God is your ultimate authority, the first thing through my mind is always, "Fine, I understand that; what has He been telling you? By what means has He been telling it to you? By Urim and Thummim, perhaps? If you have definitive communication from God Himself to the effect that something He has said in the Bible is no longer binding or useful, is there some reason you wouldn't go public with your claim that God has, through you his prophet, said something different? If what He has said to you isn't different from what is in the Bible, exactly what is your issue?"

If the communication you've received from God agrees with the Bible, or if you're saying that what you're hearing from God isn't authoritative for faith and practice, I have a hard time understanding exactly what your issue with sola scriptura is; if what you say you've heard from God disagrees with the Bible, then what this ignernt ol' redneck needs from you is not some pious-sounding pronouncement that God is your ultimate authority, but some reason I should believe that what you are saying is theopneustos, God-breathed, communication from God on the level of scripture. If you can't provide such a reason, you'll have to pardon me if I don't take you seriously. It sounds like you are trying to pass off the opinions of men as authoritative communication from God.