I certainly believe you can be a Christian without having access to a Bible in a language you speak. You can become a believer by oral transmission of the Gospel from another believer. That does not, however, imply that such a believer is guaranteed access to the full knowledge of God’s Word despite his lack of a Bible. Nowhere did God promise that all believers would be equally well-informed. In fact, even with access to Bibles, all believers are still not equally well informed. Some people don’t read the Bible because they don’t feel like reading it, and others don’t because they don’t have access to one. In either case, they’re missing out. That doesn’t mean they cannot be saved.
1 Like
Excellent. We agree on those things.
1 Like
The only information I am privy to are the millions of years of fossils, stacked in a sequence that is consistent around the world… that would be impossible if the Earth experienced a global catastrophic flood.
Ok, here’s a second line of reasoning. I am not aware of any early Christians from the time period who regarded the Gospels as merely historical testimonies, but not Scripture. Was there ever any debate in the church about whether the Gospels are Scripture or not? If not, why not?
2 Likes
Other than the disciples themselves (and their companions who listened to their teaching), who would have written down Jesus’ words first? Your question makes little sense historically. Naturally, they did have memories of Jesus’ words.
He is reassuring His disciples that they would have peace, and that through remembering what He said, they would have faith to enter into eternal life with Him. I don’t read it as a command to write about Him, but a command to have faith in Him. Faith that He was going ahead of us to be with God, and that He would return. It is written so that I may receive the same gift of peace and faith today.
3 Likes
Well that is a much better argument, though it could be refined. That’s an argument from Church tradition, not the text of scripture. Glad to see you coming along.
1 Like
Faith in what, exactly? Are you denying the gospels are Scripture?
I don’t think he is denying the Gospels are Scripture, and I certainly am not.
1 Like
I don’t think that’s what the statement is saying. Looking at the whole text, I see “For God’s revelation in Christ and in Scripture is unchangeable.” To me, this completely opposes what you are interpreting from the statement. I believe the last sentence merely refers to different perspectives that can enlighten us, not new revelation itself.
You are mistaking my argument. I am in no way claiming that the Gospels are not Scripture. You and I actually agree on this point you are making. What I am saying is that the claim that the Gospels are divinely inspired depends much more on Church tradition than on evidence within the Bible itself.
2 Likes
I’m surprised that no one hasn’t brought up 2 Peter 3:15-16:
And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
Here Peter is speaking of Paul’s letters as authoritative scriptures (graphe, used elsewhere in the NT primarily in reference to Old Testament scriptures).
Next there is 1 Timothy 5:18, where Paul quotes a Scripture saying “The laborer deserves his wages” and puts it on the same level as Deuteronomy 25:4. This saying matches Jesus’ saying in Luke 10:7. Possibly Paul is quoting an oral tradition, not the written Gospel at this point, but it still supports the general argument.
4 Likes
I would disagree with that statement…I think the Gospels are divinely inspired because of evidence in the Bible. I have not been exposed to church tradition because I am newly reborn and have not yet found a denomination that seems worthy.
Faith in Jesus…there is a lot going on in John 14 and 15. I think Jesus was giving them final instruction and solidifying their faith, comforting them for what was coming, encouraging them to not give up because He was the way to eternal life and He was about to prove it by rising from the dead. They still doubted.
No, I would be one on the side of arguing that the gospels are true and that the authors (except Luke) were witnesses. I think Mark was the “certain young man” in Mark 14:51, and that Peter had a lot of influence in his writing, but they both witnessed the events. I think that John the son of Zebedee was the author of John, 1/2/3 John and Revelation. I think that Matthew was half hearsay and half witness, but that it is truth. I think Luke was brilliant and able to discern from how the apostles lived what the truth was. I don’t doubt that there was editing, and think that translation can get complicated regardless of the language, but don’t think that discounts the truth.
But I am still studying and working it out through prayer, much of what I know has come through revelation, not necessarily teaching. I am open to new ideas because I don’t have any preconceptions or stigma related to a denomination.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 - All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
1 Thess 2:13 - For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe.
John 7:16-17 - Jesus answered them and said, “My doctrine is not Mine, but His who sent Me. 17 If anyone wills to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority.
1 John 1:1-4- That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life— 2 the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us— 3 that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ. 4 And these things we write to you that [a]your joy may be full.
1 Like
But what is Scripture? In context they couldn’t have meant the New Testament. They meant the Law, the prophets, Jesus’ teaching, and (likely) the “apostles teaching.”
What specific books does this reference? Well the Bible doesn’t actually have an inspired table of contents. A couple examples that have been debated…
Is the book of Enoch part of the prophets? The Ethiopian church thought so. Most of us don’t.
Is James, written by the brother of Jesus, not an apostle, included in the “teaching of the apostles”? Most Protestants say yes, but Martin Luther disputes this, no surprise because he favored Galatians.
These issues in defining “Scripture” using the Bible alone are fundamental spoilers. Yes, the Bible is important, and I affirm it is inerrant and infallible in all it intends to teach, but it comes to us through the traditions of the Church, and that is an important and non-neglect able reality.
What does @deuteroKJ and @jongarvey think?
4 Likes
My understanding is that in those times, the letters circulated and the direction was given in the next two (1 thess 2:13, John 7:16-17) and similar instruction appears in Romans 12:1-2, Isaiah, Psalms and Proverbs (I would have to dig for appropriate verses). That scripture would be evident through confirmation by the Spirit of God/Truth. I can tell when someone reads a funky translation whether it is truth or not because the Spirit guides me. Perhaps the translation is just something that does not resonate with me, maybe its just too fluffy (Message falls into this category for me). I am not familiar with the book of Enoch.
Which brings me to the question of the thread…the bible is perfect because God speaks through the Word. God speaks the truth that guides me personally, but it may be different than the truth that you require to guide you. We both get something out of it that makes us know what God’s will is for each of us individually. Some go deeper, some stay surface, Jesus is the judge of who shows themselves approved.
I think its fair to say that I would not believe in God without scripture and I would not believe in scripture without God.
1 Like
Pls note that the book of Jude was written before the book of Revelation. So Jude 1:3 is not about the end to all Scriptural revelation. Its not talking about progressive revelation imo. It’s pointing to the Gospel and faith in Jesus as the only means of Salvation. And this Gospel is unchanging.
The Gospel does not change from culture to culture.
Historically, the church has progressed in it’s understanding of the word of God over time through debates and discussion. For example, take the council’s on the canon, on the trinity etc. The protestant reformation is another example. The change in understanding of water Baptism is another example. None of this is “new revelation”. However, it is a better understanding and a new consensus among churches (depending on the denomination).
So whether “we” need it or not… we are all beneficiaries of progressive changes in understanding of what the bible teaches.
3 Likes
It would be better to say it comes through the providence of God… This is because different churches have different traditions.
Once for all in Jude is in reference to Jesus Himself as God’s faithful sacrifice for us, crucified and the “once for all” propitiation of sin, not as a reference to scripture. See Romans 6, Hebrews 7/9/10.
1 Like
“Once for all” is used specifically in the new testament to reference the finality of Jesus’ sacrifice as propitiation for all sin. Jude 1:3 is not a reference for the authority of scripture, it is a reference for the authority of Jesus.
Romans 6:12- For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all ; but the life that He lives, He lives to God.
[Hebrews 7:27]
who does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people’s, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.
[Hebrews 9:12]
Not with the blood of goats and calvs, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all , having obtained eternal redemption.
Hebrews 10:10
By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all .