Something to Ponder

We’ll make an atheist of you yet ;)

The “and not one word, jot or tittle shall be changed” strikes me as a little on the uh, clever side, for God, so to speak. I mean, kind of superficial and self serving-sounding. Not presidential or Godsidential enough, impo.

Also you look at different passages - say the beatitudes vs. that line about how believing Christians can drink poison with no ill effects. Is that particular verse inspired??

Good question, Nathan.

At first glance, I can see where you’d get circular logic, but only if you forget both what the Bible is and what is being referenced and the different processes that went into determining whether the Bible is true.

So, that means, Paul stating that “All Scripture” is not a problem before the entire books of the Bible were written, because Paul is not commenting on books yet to be written.

Does it bother you that the criteria for canonization were entirely extra-biblical?

This is a strawman. Either back this up with proof, or withdraw this falsehood. The OT canon was derived by Scripture. Jesus attested to the books to be included as did others at the time. In the NT, Apostleship was the test, as well as attestation by Apostles. These are hardly extra-biblical.

I’m not saying extra-biblical tests were not used as well, but your statement is incorrect in that they were entirely extra-biblical.

Need to read more books like “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” and less atheist blogs, Nathan. :)

So are you saying that Paul’s writing did not apply to the New Testament, or at least part of it? Then could it be reasonably concluded that anything written after this statement isn’t necessarily inspired, under this declaration?

Certainly. The recursive problem only comes into play if you say that Paul was commenting on the authority of books not yet written, or reflexively on himself. One simply needs to ask the question “Did Paul consider what he was writing ‘Scripture?’” Under the language of his time I would say that he would not have.

Now, it’s common to use this verse (II Tim 3:16) to justify inerrancy, but I would say that you have to pay attention to scope, and realize what’s going on. For example, your tests:

1. Was the book prepared by an apostle or under the direction of an apostle?
2. Was the book used and recognized by the churches?
3. Did the book teach sound doctrine as compared with books that were already accepted as Scripture?

Did not determine the canon for the entire Bible, but what was considered New Testament canon. Hence you are right if you say that there was some extra biblical tests for the New Testament, but false when you say this applies to the whole Bible. McDowell focuses on Apostolic authority when it comes to his defense of the NT, not OT.

Again, the OT was based both on what was passed down, what Jesus accepted as Scripture (he states that the law, songs and prophets are Scripture and quotes from them as such) and therefore it’s strictly Biblical in that sense.

If I can remember correctly, the NT canon is based on your tests which derive from the concept that the Apostles had authority (revelation, prophecy, etc) to write the Word of God whereas there were imposters at the time.

The sheer number of false gospels and false teachers at the time necessitated tests to see what was true– even if they were somewhat extra-biblical.

So, back to your point– Paul’s statement doesn’t cause circular reasoning, the fact that books of the Bible back up other books of the Bible is consistent with documentary evidence, and since the Bible can be thought of a collection of works AND as a single work, this “problem” does not exist.

Thanks for the clarification.

In order to validate what Jesus in the NT about the OT, you’d have to verify the validity of the historical record inside them. That’s why the discussion of historical veracity is different and yet linked with infallibility and canonicity.

For historical veracity, all we have to prove was that the Gospel writers were first-hand eye-witnesses (first or second sources) and that what they were saying is what actually happened. The test of “is this the Word of God” is separate from whether Jesus said it was or was on the Word of God.

So, can we trust that the Gospel writers were first or second sources? Yes– and though that test is a long one, we know that two of the Gospel writers were followers and two were second sources (had access to the followers or were second followers).

Shall I continue down this track, or follow the primary?

Jesus laid the groundwork for the tests of who would be the ones to define the doctrines of the faith– in the last part of Matthew and Acts. He stated that the Comforter would come that would bring to rememberance those things that Jesus taught while on Earth. We know that John states that there was so much more that Christ said and did than what he recorded, and there were many more people that were with him than 12 (which is part of the reason that we can trust the Gospels– people would have known if what they were reading is true because they were there).

Again, we’re talking about a process that would have happened over time, it didn’t just happen when a group of people got together for their conference. The church had been constantly filtering and testing the things that were being circulated, and the church at the time decided that they needed to “close the book” and declare a standard or else people would keep trying to write things and add to the Bible (take the Mormons and the JWs for instance– they had the Gnostics and the Judiazers).

So, it’s proper that they followed the procedures that they had, which included first, second, and third generation Christians praying and seeking God’s counsel on the matter.

So, can we trust that the Gospel writers were first or second sources? Yes– and though that test is a long one, we know that two of the Gospel writers were followers and two were second sources (had access to the followers or were second followers).

The prevailing historical belief is that Mark was written first- 70 AD at earliest. Mark cannot be a first-hand source, and if it was written first, it follows that neither are the other three. We have writings from the second century indicating that Mark’s source is Peter, making Mark a second-hand account.

If we assume that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source, they are at best third-hand sources; if we assume, as most modern scholars do, that they were also inspired by the hypothetical ‘Q source’, and further assume that this source was first-hand, they are at best a mixture of information gleaned second- and third-hand.

So in the end, we have no first-hand sources, which leads us right back to Nathan’s points.

The prevailing historical belief by skeptics may be that Mark is the earliest Gospel and that Matthew and Luke are based off of them. That doesn’t explain the fact that Matthew and Luke are the only books that include the birth story of Jesus, genealogies, and other events unique to the those books. It also doesn’t explain the fact that Luke is author of more than one book or the different focuses.

It’s a great hypothesis if you’re a skeptic. And I mentioned that Luke and Mark were second sources. Matthew remains a first source until you prove that he is not. I mean, why would Matthew use Mark as a source if he was there? Why would Luke (who historians rate as a first class historian) base his work on someone else’s work when the first sources were available for interview (just where did he go during those passages in Acts when he wasn’t with Paul?).

And then you conveniently ignore John for some reason?

Back to my point– 2 first hand sources, 2 second hand sources that had access to first hand sources.

My points stand.

The prevailing historical belief by skeptics may be that Mark is the earliest Gospel and that Matthew and Luke are based off of them. That doesn’t explain the fact that Matthew and Luke are the only books that include the birth story of Jesus, genealogies, and other events unique to the those books. It also doesn’t explain the fact that Luke is author of more than one book or the different focuses.

No, but the two-source hypothesis for Matthew and Luke provides an entirely sufficient explanation for the material unique to those gospels. If the Q-source is first-hand, then parts of Matthew and Luke are second-hand. The rest are third-hand.

It’s a great hypothesis if you’re a skeptic.

So the majority of Bible scholars are not in fact Christians?

Matthew remains a first source until you prove that he is not.

Uh, no. It doesn’t work that way.

I mean, why would Matthew use Mark as a source if he was there?

Well, you’d have to show that he was there.

Why would Luke (who historians rate as a first class historian) base his work on someone else’s work when the first sources were available for interview

Again, you’re going to have to show that the first sources really were available; and Luke would then remain at best a second-hand source.

And then you conveniently ignore John for some reason?

Because John is believed to have been written around AD 100. There’s no evidence that it was actually written by John, and the text itself seems to contraindicate this, as the narration refers to the Apostle several times in the third-person. Additionally, it makes mention of the widespread expulsion of Christians from synagogues, which did not occur until near the end of the first century.

Back to my point– 2 first hand sources, 2 second hand sources that had access to first hand sources.

But you didn’t provide any evidence that Matthew or John are first-hand sources.

I have not disputed that Luke is a second hand source. That he had access to first hand sources is not in question. He clearly wrote Luke and Acts, and was a contemporary to Paul. He went on the missionary journeys with Paul, and therefore would have had access to those people that were alive at the time.

Stating that skeptics like the Q hypothesis does not mean that I equate all adherents to a philosophy as being skeptics. Nice tactic, but logically inequivalent.

Documentary criticism traditionally holds that the professed or accepted author of a given work holds until proven otherwise. Since Matthew is the traditional author of the book of Matthew, that holds until proven otherwise. It does “work that way.”

All of the Gospels state that Matthew was one of the 12 Apostles. He was there. But perhaps you mean that I have to prove that Matthew was the author of the book of Matthew. But then we’re back to my previous paragraph. The burden of proof is not on me.

No evidence that it was written by John? That’s one I’ve only heard you put forth. The third person reference does not discredit the text, as you would assume, since John– being humbled by Christ (as seen in the book of Revelation) could be seen applying a humbling motif to his writing. Add to that the lack of references to the Apostle John by name and we find that if the author was not John himself, he really wanted everyone to think he was John.

But sure, if we want to say that none of the books of the Bible were authored by the people that they claimed to be, but instead are all frauds, then it would support the point that it’s all a bunch of hooey that no one should follow. It would boost the skeptic’s claims, and make fundamentalists into fools for following it.

It would be a collection of works that no man should place faith and trust in, though it would be good for moral standards or the like, but one could not trust it to properly reflect reality.

Some other links to look at:
A look into the historicity of the Gospels
John’s Authoring of the Gospel of John

Point taken, Nathan– but historicity and inspiration are tied, unfortunately. Once you’ve determined that they aren’t written by the Apostles but by some other group of people at some other time then the whole inspiration question falls apart.

But back on your topic. The question is hard one to answer because of its nature. When we say that something is inspired or “God-breathed” we don’t mean that God gave dictation, but that He actually guided the content of what an author wrote using the individual person. So, Amos could write like a farmer, Isaiah like a priest, David a poet, etc.

So, if you sat down and tried to figure out what books, out of possibly hundreds that lie around you, are the Word of God– what would you do?

This process is a human process, in that we have to develop some tests, and God has to bless in that He reveals it to us. And so, we have tests like “did the apostles/Jesus state something was in or out” but that doesn’t work for the New Testament, except that some of the Apostles address the other’s works. And even then, I’m sure there were more epistles than the ones we have.

So, in my mind, we’re kinda at the mercy of the first and second century believers when it comes to the NT– they would have either seen Jesus or had been a follower of someone who had– and therefore they could vouch for the content of a document and its consistency with the rest of Scripture.

Like I said, I don’t see the circular reasoning because the Bible tends to internally verify other portions.

If God exists and his existence cannot be known, then he is irrelevant. If God exists and doesn’t interact with people, then again he is irrelevant. If God exists and he has communicated with man, then we can trust he controlled the method.

We then can have faith in His ability to communicate and faith in our finite understanding about the methodology.

I find apologetics very overrated. Actually God only directs us to the heavens as some form of deductive proof of His existence. There are many scholarly reasons that substantiate the validity of the written Scriptures but alas there are some questions as well. To the natural man those questions remain unresolved.

But to the regenerated mind those questions either are resolved by faith or are relegated as non-essentials that will one day be revealed. When the antibiotic worked in my blood and the virol bacteria was eradicated I knew a little about the medicine but was ignorant of its chemical composition.

Therefore the success of its designed purpose in my life was paramount and subjectively satisfactory. I assumed, by faith, that the particulars about which I was ignorant were consistant with the essence of its performance. Its performance was as advertised and that rendered the scientific minutia about the methodology of its physiological interaction as congrous with its success, albeit beyond my ability to completely understand.

I know much more than enough about the earthly particulars of the Scriptures and their desired performance in my life to be confident that any “loose ends” concerning their formulation are unremarkable and consistent with the integrity of their Author.

Succinctly, God has spoken. Selah.

“Indeed, but we’re not talking about you. We’re talking about others. How can we convince someone concerning Christianity without being able to defend, to their satisfaction, our beliefs?”

Same old way I got saved - the gospel.

I heard the goespel on TV from Billy Graham and was saved. But if you mean explanation and expounding then sure, we should. But most gosple presentations, including missionaries, do not come with what would be considered apologetics. The Word many times gains miraculous access into a sinner’s heart.

The Holy Spirit convicts of sin and emptiness in a person’s spirit. Many people if not most, are not at the intellectual level where apologetics would serve the purpose that itwould in some. Additionally, someone like Stephen Hawkings might need some apologetics yet after being convinced he still must place his faith in Christ the same way an 11 year old girl would do.

An intellectual ascent can be a problem as well.

I’m with Rick here. Jesus called His followers to be witnesses, not apologists. We’re called to simply share our faith– what does it mean to you, Nate– not try to explain every criticism.

That doesn’t mean that we should not be prepared to answer for the reason for our faith, but the most powerful witness isn’t a discussion of historicity, innerrancy, etc., but what Jesus has done in your life, what He’s doing now, and what you will be.

There’s no way to argue against what Jesus has done in any given person’s life. There’s no skeptic that can say with any authority “no, Christ didn’t change you from the sinner that you were.” They can make the claim, but there’s no way they can prove it.

Apologetics aren’t wrong. Discussing deep things of the faith is fine. But when it comes to the Gospel and people getting saved, it’s faith in Christ.

As I said before– if you come to the Bible expecting to find problems, there’ll be things there for you to find, but there’s nothing there without a reasonable explanation.