Ten Reasons We Believe the Bible

By Nathan Busenitz @ http://www.sfpulpit.com

There is no question that the Bible claims to be the Word of God. In fact, over 2,000 times in the Old Testament alone, from the beginning (Gen. 1:3) to the end (Mal. 4:3), the assertion is made that God Himself spoke what is written within its pages.

This theme continues into the New Testament, where the phrase “the Word of God” occurs over 40 times. Without apology or qualification, the Bible declares that it was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (2 Tim. 3:16–17; 2 Pet. 1:21), and that its message is absolutely true (John 17:17; cf. Pss. 19, 119) because its divine Author is incapable of falsehood (cf. Titus 1:3; Heb. 6:18).

But how can we, as Christians, be confident in accepting such claims? After all, there are other religious books that claim to come from God. And there are also many people who adhere to no religious book at all. So what is it about the Bible that compels us to believe its testimony is true?

This is the question that R. A. Torrey asked himself nearly a century ago. It is the question we hope to address in this series. Like Torrey, we have developed a list of ten reasons why we believe the Bible is the Word of God (based in part on his original list). Today we will only mention the ten, with the intention of exploring each of these in subsequent posts.

We believe the Bible is God’s Word because . . .

1. It explains us and our world in a way that perfectly corresponds to reality. In other words, it is the special revelation (Psalm 19:7–11) necessary to truly make sense of general revelation (Psalm 19:1–6; Romans 1, 2).

Ronald Nash: Christian theism is only one of a number of competing conceptual systems. . . . When faced with a choice among competing touchstone propositions of different world-views, we should choose the one that, when applied to the whole of reality, gives us the most coherent picture of the world. (Faith & Reason, 51)

John Gerstner: The Bible answers the questions which nature raises. This seems to be an initial presumption in favor of the Bible’s being the very word of God, namely, that it answers the questions which only God can answer. (Reasons for Faith, 69)

2. It is accurate in the areas in which it can be tested (such as science and history), and therefore credible in areas where it cannot be tested (such as faith) (cf. Psalm 119:160; John 17:17).

William Lane Craig: Sooner or later, however, the core question concerning Scripture’s trustworthiness must be raised – are its historical portions factual? Or to ask the question another way, where the Bible purports to be relating things that happened on this earth at a particular period of its history, is it conveying accurate or reliable information about what was said and done? . . . . It is this historical nature of Christianity which sets it off from many other world religions, particularly the Eastern religions. (Reasonable Faith, 195)

3. It’s supernatural character has been validated by hundreds of fulfilled prophecies (cf. Isaiah 53; Daniel 9:24–27; John 5:39–47; 1 Cor. 15:3–4).

Rubel Shelly: The strongest single evidence of the Bible’s divine origin . . . is predictive prophecy. . . . Everyone one of the scores of Old and New Testament predictive prophecies has been fulfilled to the letter, except for those relating to the second coming of Crhist, the final judgment, and eternity. The fact of the fulfillment of those prior prophecies is conclusive proof to Christians that the remaining ones will come to pass. The Bible itself places great emphasis on predictive prophecy as proof of the integrity of the total system of things revealed therein. (Prepare to Answer, 117-18)

4. It is marked by a clear and consistent message, despite being written by many human authors over a period of 1,500 years (cf. 2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20–21).

F.F. Bruce: The Bible, at first sight, appears to be a collection of literature—mainly Jewish. If we enquire into the circumstances under which the various Biblical documents were written, we find that they were written at intervals over a space of nearly 1400 years. The writers wrote in various lands, from Italy in the west to Mesopotamia and possibly Persia in the east. The writers themselves were a heterogeneous number of people, not only separated from each other by hundreds of years and hundreds of miles, but belonging to the most diverse walks of life. In their ranks we have kings, herdsmen, soldiers, legislators, fishermen, statesmen, courtiers, priests and prophets, a tent-making Rabbi and a Gentile physician, not to speak of others of whom we know nothing apart from the writings they have left us. The writings themselves belong to a great variety of literary types. They include history, law (civil, criminal, ethical, ritual, sanitary), religious poetry, didactic treatises, lyric poetry, parable and allegory, biography, personal correspondence, personal memoirs and diaries, in addition to the distinctively Biblical types of prophecy and apocalyptic.

For all that the Bible is not simply an anthology; there is a unity which binds the whole together. An anthology is compiled by an anthologist, but no anthologist compiled the Bible. (The Books and the Parchments, 88)

5. It is unsurpassed in its literary quality, moral ethic, and social impact as would be expected if God were its Source (cf. Psalm 119:137–144). It likewise possesses an inexhaustible richness (cf. Rom. 11:33–36) which satisfies the thirsty soul (cf. Psalms 1:2-3; 42:1).

A. Rendle Short: Needless to say, if it be true that the Book is divinely inspired, we shall expect to find that it is in quite a different category from all other books whatsoever. We shall be interested to study to what extent the divine inspiration overrules the human element. Ordinary English writers of prose or poetry, Shakespeare, Bunyan, Tennyson, make no such claim as this, nor do their writings exhibit the marks of it. (Why Believe?, 59)

Bernard Ramm: Our logic in this case shall be rather plain. All of the various tributes paid to the Bible are in reality one tribute: the Bible is able perennially to grip profoundly the human soul. Wherein rests this peculiar magnetism of the Bible? Is it in its literary power or beauty? Is it in its dramatic elements? Or, perchance, it is in its human interest values? However, to keep the most significant issue to the front of the real question is this: is the power of the Bible to grip the human soul of divine or human origin? (Protestant Christian Evidences, 224)

6. It changes the lives of individual people, through the power of the Spirit, transforming those who were slaves of sin into sons and daughters of righteousness (cf. Psalm 119:97–104, 130; Eph. 6:18; Heb. 4:12; 1 Pet. 3:1-2).

Josh McDowell: My father’s life was changed right before my eyes [when he trusted Christ]. It was like someone reached down and switched on a light inside him. He touched alcohol only once after that. He got the drink only as far as his lips and that was it—after forty years of drinking! He didn’t need it any more. Fourteen months later, he died form complications of his alcoholism. But in that fourteen-month period over a hundred people in the area around my tiny hometown committed their lives to Jesus Christ because of the change they saw in the town drunk, my dad. (The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, xxvii)

John Frame: In Scripture we not only find the information needed to reform, to sanctify our lives; we also find there the ability to do so; for the Holy Spirit of God works in and with the word, and he works in saving power. Thus we have an additional motive to return again and again to Scripture. It is there that we find the strength to change, to reform our ideas and life-decisions in obedience to God. The words of Scripture and the Spirit therein work together (not, of course, independently); thus by the Spirit’s work, the words “captivate” us, “grip” us. We find them memorable, penetrating, profoundly true. We find that we cannot avoid taking them into account. (“Rationality and Scripture,” Online Source)

7. It stands alone among other books that claim to come from God, in both its external verifiability and its internal consistency (cf. Isaiah 41:21–23).

John Ankerberg and John Weldon: In conclusion, the fact that Christianity more logically and adequately explains our existence than does any other religion, and that its theological teaching are unique [among world religions], argue in part for biblical Christianity being the true religion. . . . The Bible is the only ancient book with documented scientific and medical prevision. No other ancient book is ever carefully analyzed along scientific lines, but many books have been written on the them of the Bible and modern science. (Fast Facts on Defending Your Faith, 33, 84–85)

8. It continues to victoriously withstand the attacks of its critics. Despite attempts to undermine its message, the Bible has stood the test of time.

Norman Geisler: While many have doubted the accuracy of the Bible, time and continued research have consistently demonstrated that the Word of God is better informed than its critics. In fact, while thousands of finds from the ancient world support in broad outline and often in detail the biblical picture, not one incontrovertible find has ever contradicted the Bible. (Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics)

9. It was confirmed as the Word of God by Jesus Christ. As Christians, insofar as we believe in Jesus Christ, we must also believe that the Bible is the Word of God.

R.C. Sproul: According to Jesus, the writings of Scripture are more than generally reliable. They are the veritable words of God, unable to be broken. He not only taught that they were verbally inspired, he taught that “until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished” (Matt. 5:18; cf. Luke 16:17; 24:25-27; John 10:35; 13:18; 17:12). (Defending Your Faith, 181)

John Frame: To be committed to Jesus Christ is to honor his word, above all other words. Van Til, together with all orthodox believers, held that the word of Christ, the word of God, is to be found in the Holy Scriptures, indeed that the Bible is the word of God. (“Antithesis and the Doctrine of Scripture,” Online Source)

10. It is made certain by the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer (cf. John 10:14–16; 1 Cor. 2:10–16).

William Lane Craig: Reason can be used to defend our faith by formulating arguments for the existence of God or by refuting objections. But though the arguments so developed serve to confirm the truth of our fatih, they are not properly the basis of our faith, for that is supplied by the witness of the Holy Spirit Himself. (Hard Questions, Real Answers, 37-38)

R. A. Torrey: The Holy Spirit sets His seal in the soul of every believer to the Divine authority of the Bible. It is possible to get to a place where we need no argument to prove that the Bible is God’s Word. Christ says, “My sheep know my voice,” and God’s children know His voice, and I know that the voice that speaks to me from the pages of that Book is the voice of my Father. You will sometimes meet a pious old lady, who tells you that she knows that the Bible is God’s Word, and when you ask her for a reason for believing that it is God’s Word she can give you none, She simply says: ”I know it is God’s Word.” You say: “That is mere superstition.” Not at all. She is one of Christ’s sheep, and recognizes her Shepherd’s voice from every other voice. She is one of God’s children, and knows the voice which speaks to her from the Bible is the voice of God. (“Ten Reasons I Believe the Bible is the Word of God”)

A Presuppositional Approach to Preservation

Posted by Dave Mallinak @http://www.jackhammr.org

Attempting to be neutral in one’s intellectual endeavors (whether research, argumentation, reasoning, or teaching ) is tantamount to striving to erase the antithesis between the Christian and the unbeliever. Christ declared that the former was set apart from the latter by the truth of God’s word (John 17:17). Those who wish to gain dignity in the eyes of the world’s intellectuals by wearing the badge of “neutrality” only do so at the expense of refusing to be set apart by God’s truth. In the intellectual realm they are absorbed into the world so that no one could tell the difference between their thinking and assumptions and apostate thinking and assumptions. The line between believer and unbeliever is obscured.

Such indiscrimination in one’s intellectual life not only precludes genuine knowledge (cf. Prov 1:7) and guarantees vain delusion (cf. Col. 2:3-8), it is downright immoral.

Greg Bahnsen in Robert Booth, ed., Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith (Nacogdoches, TX: Covenant Media Press, 1996), pp.7-8 (emphasis his)

Presuppositional apologetics is best summarized by Paul in 2 Corinthians 4:3:

We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak;

In other words, we fear God so that we can understand and know. As Bahnsen correctly says (p. 20),

To make God’s word your presupposition, your standard, your instructor and guide, however, calls for renouncing intellectual self-sufficiency – the attitude that you are autonomous, able to attain unto genuine knowledge independent of God’s direction and standards. Instead of beginning with God’s sure word as foundational in their studies, they would have us think that they begin with intellectual self-sufficiency and (using this as their starting-point) work up to a “rational” acceptance of Scripture.

So, believers are set apart from unbelievers by their assumptions (John 17:17 again). The believer assumes that Scripture is true, no matter what it says. The unbeliever assumes that all Scripture must be tested by other evidence. Cornelius Van Til, in his book The Defense of the Faith (1), traces this autonomous desire of man all the way back to the garden of Eden, where Satan challenged Eve to “go to as many as possible of those reputed to have knowledge.” Of course, in Eve’s case, there were only two “reputed to have knowledge.” God commanded Eve not to eat of the fruit, “for in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die.” In deciding these things, Van Til reminds us, God would have us to know first “what do we know” and after this, “how do we know it.” Satan urged Eve to first consider “how do we know it” while ignoring the question of “what do we know.”

So, Eve stepped out and became her own authority, took the neutral position, and decided for herself. God said, “thou shalt surely die.” Satan said, “Ye shall not surely die. For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” But ultimately, the woman made herself the final and ultimate authority.

And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Presuppositions are inescapable. We either presuppose that God’s Word is true and ultimate, or we presuppose that our opinions and decisions for the truth are true and ultimate. We cannot claim to somehow mix these two presuppositions. No man can serve two masters. If we claim a “neutral” position and come to the truth by weighing evidence, then we serve the master of our own personal autonomy. We ignore the question of “what we know” in favor of asking “how we know.” The submissive assumption of the believer is that “what we know” is most important, while “how we know” can only be answered after the first question.

A Presuppositional View of Preservation
On the issue of Preservation, “what can we know?” Confessing Christians must take a presuppositional approach to this question. We presuppose that we can know what God has told us, what He has said we can know. We can know that God Himself will preserve His Word, that one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. We can know that God’s Word will be generally accessible to men in all generations.

As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever. Isa 59:21

Knowing these things, we ask, “how can we know this.” And we immediately find an answer – thy word is truth. We can know this because God says it. God promises it. It will be done by the power of God. When we ask “how will this be done,” we must again revert back to our original question, “what can we know?” We know that God’s Word is truth. We know that the church is the pillar and ground of the truth. Thus, the church, in an historical sense, bears witness to the truth. When we answer the question of “what we can know,” the question of “how can we know” is readily answered.

In his book Mother Kirk: Essays and Forays in Practical Ecclesiology (2), Douglas Wilson demonstrates how this is done. I quote from Wilson here, not because he would necessarily agree with us on every point of doctrine (or that we would be in full agreement with him), but to point out that these are not “new and novel” ideas as others have claimed. Nor are they “a wildly unique and woefully complex position.” We want to point out that others who are not of our stripe believe basically the same thing that we believe.

Beginning with the canonization of 66 books, Wilson demonstrates that, far from establishing or determining, the Historic Church submissively received the Scriptures on their own authority. “They are the Word of God, and they speak to us as such. Nevertheless, God has given us a secondary earthly testimony concerning them.” The church gives witness to the Word, and this witness includes canonization. In this sense, the church is not granting authority to the Scriptures, but rather is giving important testimony. This testimony is established and settled, so that (as Wilson says), “God does not intend for us to debate the canon of Scripture afresh every generation.” Rather, “in 393 at Hippo and 397 at Carthage, the Church formally testified that the twenty-seven books which we have in the New Testament are to be received as apostolic.”

So, the churches did not testify on their own authority. They rather accepted what had been preserved through the copying efforts of the churches. The Bible, as the Westminster Confession states, is preserved by God’s “singular care and providence.” The church and the churches give their witness to this fact by faith. It is an ungodly mock to ridicule our faith in God’s promise and plan.

Just as the churches testified of the canon of books, based on the faithful copying of God’s people, even so the churches, in settling on the Authorized Version, settled on the words of the Textus Receptus . The almost universal use of the Authorized Version from its inception up until the last one hundred or so years indicates that before liberalism launched their attack, the church had been settled on the Textus Receptus.

Wilson addresses this attack from liberalism first by pointing out the Catholic response to sola Scriptura. “The Reformers might want to say they believed in Scripture alone, but in which textual family was it to be found? Without an infallible church, without experts of some kind, there was no way to tell.” (pp.54, 55). And then, Wilson gives the Reformation’s answer.

The Reformers answered this question, not as neutral scientists, but as confessing Christians. The Word of God, they said, was basically found in the received text, which was representative of the manuscript family containing the overwhelming number of manuscripts. The Reformers asserted this, not on the basis of some neutral science, but on the basis of faith in God’s preservation of His own Word… For the Reformers, and for all consistent Christians, the doctrines of the Bible’s inspiration and the Bible’s preservation are twins.

The Evidential View of Preservation
Enter textual criticism. Wilson points out the similar reasoning of textual criticism in our day.

… evangelical scholars gradually came to the conviction that the science of textual criticism was in fact “a neutral science.” In other words, the worldview of the textual critic and translator does not necessarily matter. The foundation stone of all the modern versions is that textual criticism is a neutral science, and that Christians and non-Christians alike can be good practitioners of this science. The difference between evangleical and liberal textual critics is that the evangelicals have sought to fight off the principles of higher criticism by using the principles of lower criticism, little realizing that the fundamental principles are the same in each case.

In the last one hundred years or so, liberalism has challenged us to look at the evidence. No longer should we simply receive the Scriptures on their own authority and accept the witness of the churches. Today we have more information available. We are more capable of research. We are more equipped to examine the extrinsic evidence. Therefore, we are being called upon to go back and examine the veracity, not of the books of the Bible or of entire chapters, but of the words, of particular verses, and occasionally of particular passages.

Our opponents in this debate presuppose that this is what all the early collators did, so therefore we should also. But there is another, more subtle and deceptive assumption being made. Textual criticism presupposes that man must decide for himself. Man must make determinations, not about how a word or verse should be translated, but about whether a word or verse should be translated. This assumption whispers in our autonomous ears that we must weigh the evidence and decide for ourselves whether this word or this verse or this paragraph should be included. God wants us questioning His Word, the text critic says. And so, as a result, we have mounds and mounds of different autonomous decisions being made. One version accepts I John 5:7 and rejects the end of Mark 16. Another version rejects I John 5:7 and accepts the end of Mark 16, though with a disclaimer. And probably more than a few versions reject both.

Text criticism stands in judgement of God’s Word. Its proponents demand that we allow them space to decide for themselves, to determine what should be there. This attitude is in keeping with the mindset of our culture, which considers itself the first society to actually “get it right.” We are autonomous. We come to our positions individualistically and autonomously, not submissively. No doubt, we will be treated to some excessively long comments in the comments section claiming this sort of autonomy has been common throughout history, even among the collators of the TR, and including massive amounts of data to reinforce this view and discourage the readers. But we must not be deceived on this point. If we stand back as “neutral scientists,” look at both sides of the issue, and then decide whether a word or verse should be included, then we have set ourselves up as the ultimate authority.

This is precisely what Wilson is arguing in Mother Kirk. After dealing with the necessary background information, Wilson says,

But when we consider the facts carefully, nothing is more apparent than that this is actually a battle of the paradigms… When we consider all the manuscripts we possess, we must still compare them to the number of all the manuscripts ever written – which we do not have. The reconstruction of the autographic text is a task outside the competence of science, and any attempt to submit the task to scientific canons will only result in increasing confusion… The autonomous text critic is someone who believes that this problem of the original text is one which admits of a scientific solution, or worse, that there is no solution. But the real solution to this problem is faith in God, and in His providential care for His Word. (emphasis his)

The point here is not to dismiss out of hand any sort of determining whatsoever, for that is impossible. Rather, the point is to dismiss a particular kind of “determining,” the kind of determining that wants to scientifically weigh the evidence. When we examine our Bibles, we should be asking, “what does this mean,” not “should this even be here.”

Now, we are not so naive as to think there will be no objections. A brief glance at the comment threads alone will reveal otherwise. A basic objection, and probably the most frequent objection to the presuppositional approach, is to point out the “mistakes” themselves. And judging again by the comment threads, there are many of these “mistakes” to be pointed out. We have said that we believe that God perfectly preserved His Word. We took some pains to define what we meant by “perfect,” demonstrating that perfect preservation should take the same shape as the inerrancy of Scripture. In other words, we do not make Scripture conform to our definition, but instead conform our definition to Scripture.

Our opponents counter this by arguing that if there is even one variant, then God did not perfectly preserve his Word, and the words are all up for grabs. As Kent quoted from Kevin Bauder, “If they can admit that a legitimate margin of error exists within their sources, then they do not really believe in perfect preservation at all.”

It should be pointed out here that unbelievers also use this line of reasoning to counter the doctrine of inerrancy. If they can find even one error, then the Bible is undone. And of course, they will find an error, and refuse to accept any explanation for it. The point is not that the error they found was actually an error. The point is that they refuse to believe, as anyone who is versed in presuppositional apologetics will know.

We believe that God has preserved His Word perfectly, not because no errors have been found, but because God said he would keep it. On the same basis, we believe that the Bible is inerrant, not because no errors have been found, but because it is God’s Word. This is presupposed. We have asked “what can we know,” and then asked, “how can we know it.”

Textual criticism asks “how can we know” first, only asking “what can we know” when their first question is answered. Textual criticism demands evidence before it will settle. The text critic must decide for himself. He must be autonomous in his search for God’s words. Textual criticism is naturalistic. It has compromised to meet the demands of liberalism. It is theistic evolution. As Wilson said, it is “an anemic attempt to have it both ways, i.e., continuing to believe in the Bible while accepting (to a limited extent) the new critical approach to textual studies.”

___________

Footnotes

(1) Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith (Philipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1955), pp. 33-35

(2) Douglas Wilson, Mother Kirk: Essays and Forays in Practical Ecclesiology (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2001) for all of the quotes in this essay, please see chapter 3 “Receive the Word”, esp. pp. 51-60

Prophecy and the Closed Canon (Part 3)

By John MacArthur @ http://www.sfpulpit.com

From the time of the apostles until the present, the true church has always believed that the Bible is complete. God has given his revelation, and now Scripture is finished. God has spoken. What He gave is complete, efficacious, sufficient, inerrant, infallible, and authoritative. Attempts to add to the Bible, and claims of further revelation from God have always been characteristic of heretics and cultists, not the true people of God.

Although charismatics deny that they are trying to add to Scripture, their views on prophetic utterance, gifts of prophecy, and revelation really do just that. As they add—however unwittingly—to God’s final revelation, they undermine the uniqueness and authority of the Bible. New revelation, dreams, and visions are considered as binding on the believers conscience as the book of Romans or the gospel of John.

Some charismatics would say that people misunderstand what they mean by prophetic utterance and new revelation. They would say that no effort is being made to change Scripture or even equal it. What is happening, they assume, is the clarifying of Scripture as it is applied or directed to a contemporary setting, such as the prophecy of Agabus in Acts 11:28.

The line between clarifying Scripture and adding to it is indeed a thin one. But Scripture is not clarified by listening to someone who thinks he has the gift of prophecy. Scripture is clarified as it is carefully and diligently studied. There are no shortcuts to interpreting God’s word accurately (cf. Acts 17:11; 2 Tim. 2:15).

Christians must not play fast and loose with the issues of inspiration and revelation. An accurate understanding of those doctrines is essential for distinguishing between the voice of God and the human voice. Men who professed to speak for God but spoke their own opinions were to be executed under the Old Testament law (Deut. 13:1–5). New Testament believers are also urged to test the spirits and judge all supposed prophecies, shunning false prophets and heretics (1 John 4:1; 1 Cor. 14:29).

The Holy Spirit is working mightily in the church today, but not in the way most charismatics think. The Holy Spirit’s role is to empower us as we preach, teach, write, talk, witness, think, serve, and live. He does lead us into God’s truth and direct us into God’s will for our lives. But He does it through God’s Word, never apart from it. To refer to the Holy Spirit’s leading and empowering ministry as inspiration or revelation is a mistake. To use phrases such as “God spoke to me,” or “This wasn’t my idea; the Lord gave it to me,” or “These aren’t my words, but a message I received from the Lord” confuses the issue of the Spirit’s direction in believers’ lives today.

Inviting that kind of confusion plays into the hands of the error that denies the uniqueness and absolute authority of Scripture. The terms and concepts of Ephesians 5:18–19 and 2 Peter 1:21 are not to be mixed. Being filled with the Spirit and speaking to one another in psalms and hymns is not the same as being moved by the Holy Spirit to write inspired Scripture.

Prophecy and the Closed Canon (Part 2)

By John MacArthur @ http://www.sfpulpit.com

How the Biblical Canon Was Chosen and Closed

Jude 3 is a crucial passage on the completeness of our Bibles. This statement, penned by Jude before the New Testament was complete, nevertheless looked forward to the completion of the entire canon:

Beloved, while I was making every effort to write to you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. (Jude 3)

In the Greek text the definite article preceding “faith” points to the one and only faith: “the faith.” There is no other. Such passages as Galatians 1:23 (“He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith”) and 1 Timothy 4:1 (“In latter times some will fall away from the faith”) indicate this objective use of the expression “the faith” was common in apostolic times. Greek scholar Henry Alford wrote that the faith is “objective here: the sum of that which Christians believe” (Alford’s Greek Testament, 4:530).

Note also the crucial phrase “once for all” in Jude 3. The Greek word here is hapax, which refers to something done for all time, with lasting results, never needing repetition. Nothing needs to be added to the faith that has been delivered “once for all.”

George Lawlor, who has written an excellent work on Jude, made the following comment:

The Christian faith is unchangeable, which is not to say that men and women of every generation do not need to find it, experience it, and live it; but it does mean that every new doctrine that arises, even though its legitimacy may be plausibly asserted, is a false doctrine. All claims to convey some additional revelation to that which has been given by God in this body of truth are false claims and must be rejected. (Jude, 45).

Also important in Jude 3 is the word “delivered.” In the Greek it is an aorist passive participle, which in this context indicates an act completed in the past with no continuing element. In this instance the passive voice means the faith was not discovered by men, but given to men by God. How did He do that? Through His Word—the Bible.

And so through the Scriptures God has given us a body of teaching that is final and complete. Our Christian faith rests on historical, objective revelation. That rules out all inspired prophecies, seers, and other forms of new revelation until God speaks again at the return of Christ (cf. Acts 2:16–21; Rev. 11:1–13).

In the meantime, Scripture warns us to be wary of false prophets. Jesus said that in our age “false christs and false prophets will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect” (Matt. 24:24). Signs and wonders alone are no proof that a person speaks for God. John wrote, “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1).

Ultimately, Scripture is the test of everything; it is the Christian’s standard. In fact, the word canon means “a rule, standard, or measuring rod.” The canon of Scripture is the measuring rod of the Christian faith, and it is complete.

Posted in Evangelicalism, Sign Gifts |

1. on 08 Feb 2007 at 4:00 am Whyte Stonne

   Let me begin by saying that I consider the canon of the Greek scriptures closed. Even if I did believe there was a book that was left out that should have been included (which I do not), it would be a colossal waste of time to lobby for its inclusion.

   Most details regarding the canon’s formation are not startling, but are informative. There were only two books that had the support of significant leaders, but did not make it into the canon–”The Shepherd of Hermas” and “The Didache” (or “The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles”).

   [http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/shepherd.html] [http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html]

   The main texts whose inclusion was disputed but were eventually included in the canon are Jude, II Peter, and Revelation. It’s interesting that the two main texts supporting a closed canon are from books whose inclusion was disputed (Jude and Revelation).

   I suspect that priorities which necessitated the formation of an authoritative canon would have still eventuated in an authoritative canon had those convenient (though meager) proofs not existed.

   We generally have faith that God superintended the selection of the books eventually labeled authoritative for Christians.

   Our faith in the selection process is not based on Scripture, however. The Revelation passage, as Scott G. points out, is very weak support for a closed canon. Jude’s words about “the faith once delivered” is a bit vague–Paul wrote similar words to the effect, “if anyone comes to you with a gospel,” etc.

   It is reasonable to develop logical arguments for the formation and existence of the canon. It is reasonable to develop an apologetic for people who have reasonable questions about the reliability of the canonization process and to answer ignorant and exaggerated attacks on the canon.

   It is not reasonable, however, to deny the human element in the formation of the canon.

Prophecy and the Closed Canon (Part 1)

By John MacArthur @http://www.sfpulpit.com

The following is adapted from Charismatic Chaos (Zondervan, 1992), 60–65.

There is no fresher or more intimate revelation than Scripture. God doesn’t need to give us private revelation to help us in our walk with Him. “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16 – 17; emphasis added). Scripture is sufficient. It offers all we need for every good work.

Christians on both sides of the charismatic fence must realize a vital truth: God’s revelation is complete for now. The canon of Scripture is closed. As the apostle John penned the final words of the last book of the New Testament, he recorded this warning: “I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to them, God shall add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life, and from the holy city, which are written in this book” (Rev. 22:18–19). Then, the Holy Spirit added a doxology and closed the canon.

When the canon closed on the Old Testament after the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, there followed four hundred “silent years” when no prophet spoke God’s revelation in any form.

That silence was broken by John the Baptist as God spoke once more prior to the New Testament age. God then moved various men to record the books of the New Testament, and the last of these was Revelation. By the second century A.D., the complete canon exactly as we have it today was popularly recognized. Church councils in the fourth century verified and made official what the church has universally affirmed, that the sixty-six books in our Bibles are the only true Scripture inspired by God. The canon is complete.

(To be continued tomorrow)

NT illumination of the OT

Princeton theologian Benjamin B. Warfield on the Trinity in the Old Testament:

Although there isn't explicit revelation about the Trinity in the Old Testament, we can see this foundational truth clearly by the light of the New Testament:
"This is not an illegitimate reading of New Testament ideas back into the text of the Old Testament; it is only reading the text of the Old Testament under the illumination of the New Testament revelation. The Old Testament may be likened to a chamber richly furnished but dimly lighted; the introduction of light brings into it nothing which was not in it before; but it brings out into clearer view much of what is in it but was only dimly or even not at all perceived before. The mystery of the Trinity is not revealed in the Old Testament; but the mystery of the Trinity underlies the Old Testament revelation, and here and there almost comes into view. Thus the Old Testament revelation of God is not corrected by the fuller revelation which follows it, but only perfected, extended and enlarged."

(Benjamin B. Warfield, The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield Vol. 2 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1932; repr. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 141-142.