#20 "Dude, What Happened?" Post #3

SORRY TO USE SO MUCH SPACE. I WANTED TO BE AS CLEAR AS POSSIBLE. MY RESPONSES ARE IN BLUE: -Jace

I really think some of the narrative of your journey would be helpful. The blood and guts, dirt and grime, joy and fulfillment of life experience contributes more to our journey that we sometimes realize. The decisions we make, the change we embrace - none of this happens in a vacuum. The narrative provides much of the context and shapes motivations and biases in a powerful way. I’m not going to give any more details about my personal life, past or present. I agree that those experiences are pivotal to any story, but this isn’t an intervention! (Hey, wait a minute.....)

You said:

"I 'lost' my faith, when I discovered the rest of the world. The history, the religions, the philosophies. There are many common threads. The greatest of which seems to be biology."

This  is where things get truly fascinating for me, for I think it demonstrates powerfully how we tend to find what we're looking for. While I would not claim to have discovered the rest of the world (there's a lot of world out there still to discover for me), I have had a good bit of exposure. I've traveled. I've read. I've made a practice of reading books I disagree with. I've lived life. So, in what is I think a very real sense, I've discovered the world too. What's fascinating to me is that this discovery has only served to deepen my faith. Now that says nothing about me or you being right. It just highlights the fact that we tend to find what we're looking for. Now if what we find is connected to what we're looking for, then outcomes are very connected to motivations. These motivations, more than the arguments we use to justify our conclusions, are truly the cause of those conclusions. I think.

I don’t disagree that you have “real world” experience. However, you have seen what you have seen through a particular prism. Whatever you do and wherever you go, you go and do as a Christian. You could argue that I have seen the world as a non-Christian, but that’s not factually true. I’ve watched the world from several different prejudices!

You said:

"This is a reasonable assumption. Particularly if you live in a time where science is a mystery. (Which would be right around the time the three major monotheisms were instigated). Regardless of any religious beliefs, it is an undeniable fact that we as humans have a desire and need to define our world. It is how we define ourselves! The most Atheistic scientist spends her life “defining” reality. This, I would argue, is derived from the same human impulse that creates religion. In other words, not an inclination to be despised, but like all tendencies, something to keep an eye on."

You previously quoted Pascal about the God shaped hole in our hearts. In this paragraph you call it the "human impulse" that moves us toward the religious and the spiritual. This explains much of human behavior and culture, doesn't it? There does seem to be a fairly universal movement toward finding meaning for our existence, discovering that our story exists within a larger story, an epic story, something cosmic and final. If there is a god, then that impulse was surely imbeded within us by this god to move us to seek this god. If there is no god, then this impulse is surely a cruel biological joke. 

I did not say it was an intrinsic desire for religion, I said it was an impulse in the human mind to “define reality”. The need to define parameters is not a “cruel biological joke”, it is a necessary evolutionary development; “Fire is hot, don’t touch fire. Fire is hot, use fire to cook.” Also, when horrible things happen (hurricanes, earthquakes, hunger, disease) we look for an answer as to why. This looking for an answer is how we come up with solutions to these problems; shelter, farming, medicine.

But the impulse itself does nothing to answer either possibility. It is a hunger. We must choose what we will eat. We decide what to do with that impulse. God's promise is that if we seek him, we will find him. The sad implication is that if we won't, we won't. We find what we're looking for. 

Maybe I’m not looking hard enough? Maybe we should get Him a bell or something.

And for those who are looking, there seems to be no end to the lengths God will go to make sure he's found. One of the interesting occurances in recent history involves the thousands of muslims who are coming to faith in Jesus because he is revealing himself to them in dreams. It's really amazing.

Sorry, but this sounds suspect. I sleep too. What do they eat before bed? I wish he would reveal himself to all the Muslims who seem hell bent on blowing themselves and everyone else up. That would be REALLY useful.

You also mentioned the era where science was a mystery as a time when mankind was more vulnerable to religion. I'm not sure I agree. Science is less a mystery now and religion abounds more than ever. Even the religion of science.

Good science is not a religion. I’m not sure religion “abounds more than ever” either. Certainly there are more people than ever. But that would mean there are more non-believers than ever as well.

I believe religion is cultural

Definitely.

Okay. So why is our cultural religion, Christianity, the one true path? How’d we get so darn lucky? How’d the billions of other folks get so unlucky?

I believe Faith is personal, but informed by cultural experience. (Meaning that our own psychological profile combined with our cultural biases will combine to give us our disposition toward certain tenets).

Agreed.

Again, then: why did us lucky American folk have such good fortune to be born in the time and place that has allowed us to see God’s revelation so clearly?

I believe the “Truth” is beyond the capabilities of the human mind. (By “Truth” I mean any final dogmatic assertion put forth by ANY faith.)

This is, itself, a final dogmatic assertion.

Touche, it is. But I will say “I believe” is a different thing than “I know”.

I believe ALL religions are man made enterprises that have served the powerful and subjugated the weak. Furthermore, they are an easy fix to finding a "purpose" in life.

This too is a very dogmatic assertion. And it seems a bit narrow. Can you not think of a single instance where Christians have served the weak and subjugated the powerful? Not one single Christian who has loved and sacrificed self for others? I can think of lots and lots.

Certainly there have been amazing, selfless people of ALL faiths who have done more for their fellow man than I ever will. However, the general history of “orthodox” faith has been used as a tool.

I believe ethical and moral behavior are intrinsically self-evident in a healthy human brain. (Therefore, assuring the health of human brains is in our collective best interest).

Agreed. C.S. Lewis deals extensively with this reality in "Mere Christianity", which I know you've read. That they are self evident is apparent.

I’m glad we can agree on this.

That we typically know the right but do the wrong also seems apparent. If we are to be held finally accountable for this, then there is a need for a savior. If we are not to be held finally accountable for this, then do what you will! But even this (no final accountability) falls flat to me, for a self-evident right and wrong that is meaningless appears to me as arbitrary.

I don’t think a self-evident right and wrong is rendered meaningless just because there is no threat of Hell. Murdering my neighbor or sleeping with his wife has immediate repercussions right here and right now. And am I only to alter my behavior under threat of reward and punishment? My dog behaves well, because it makes his life better. He is not afraid I’m going to destroy him. (well, he might be a little)

I believe the core of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are the same. Criticism of one, from the perspective of another, is a dangerous enterprise for an honest thinker.

All 3 are monotheistic, so they certainly share this core. The Quran denies essential core ideas of Judaism as well as Christian ideas about Jesus himself.

Hopefully you know I’m not saying all three believe the same things? My point was that they all originate from the same basic principles, the same general geography, and a very similar history. Abram, Abraham, Abrahim.

To claim that I cannot be an honest thinker and think critically is self defeating. To be an honest thinker, don't I have to think critically? All three religions claim exclusive truth. How can I be an honest thinker and not think critically about these claims? You have thought critically and rejected all three. I have thought critically and embraced one. But we are both honest thinkers here, in that we admit biases and attempt to come to reasonable conclusions.

My words seem to have not been clearly expressed. My point was that to accept one of these 3 as the “Truth” and reject the other 2 as false is, to me, bizarre. Hence my choice of letter D. Had you and I been born in Saudi Arabia I wonder if Jesus would come to you in a dream or if you would have been an Imam?

I believe Man does “need” authority over him. We need accountability. I find accountability to my self and my fellow man to be the most compelling and most rewarding, for all parties involved.

Why does man need authority over him? Toward what good end do we need accountability? Defined by who? How does it even matter? Though right and wrong seem to be deeply imbedded in most people, there are those who have a very twisted ethic. Who are we to judge?

I confess in my early twenties toying with “Relativism”. Then I realized I wasn’t an idiot. This is the first time you’ve tried the child psychology route in this blog! Cute, but no prize. I answered this pretty clearly in the second sentence. But I’ll bite, a little; Who are we to judge? We are sane, rational people, who desire a civil society to live our lives and raise our children in. Norway does a good job. In fact, the Scandinavian countries have the highest standard of living on earth. They also have the smallest amount of religion on earth.

I desire to transcend both my cultural and personal prejudices. Although this is in the end impossible to the fullest extent, I also believe this is the metaphorical Mt. Everest for a human being to aspire to.

This is admirable, but to use your metaphor, there must be a summit to reach. There must be something objective to reach beyond your cultural and personal prejudices. If there's not, then none of it matters.

Maybe that’s one of the route “problems” I have. I don’t need a summit to reach. Or a parade. Or a prize. Living a quality life that I enjoy is reward enough and a far greater achievement than most of human history; food, shelter, health, freedom, liberty....pretty good stuff.

I love the Sting song "Shape of My Heart". His worldview demands that everything is a product of chance and statistics. But his love for her demands that this has meaning. Religion is man's attempt to construct this meaning and it gives the illusion of meaning only. Humanistic morality is simply another version of the same. New boss - same as the old boss. It is man's attempt to find and define God. He is me. But what if there is a way where God came to us, attempts to reach us, to define us.

This is the only possible way to have actual meaning rather than a mere illusion of meaning. Christianity's claim is that this is exactly what God has done. This appeal is to events in history, which either did or did not occur. Jesus rose from the dead. All Christian claims hinge on the veracity of this event. I'm familiar with the evidence for this event in history. This evidence is helpful, even confirming. But I admit, I was looking for him. We find what we're looking for. I found him.

I like the Sting song too! You’ve mentioned this a few times here, “We find what we're looking for”.  What is it that you think I’ve been looking for? 

#19 "Dude, What Happened?!?!" Post #2

I really think some of the narrative of your journey would be helpful. The blood and guts, dirt and grime, joy and fulfillment of life experience contributes more to our journey that we sometimes realize. The decisions we make, the change we embrace - none of this happens in a vacuum. The narrative provides much of the context and shapes motivations and biases in a powerful way.


You said:
"I 'lost' my faith, when I discovered the rest of the world. The history, the religions, the philosophies. There are many common threads. The greatest of which seems to be biology."


This  is where things get truly fascinating for me, for I think it demonstrates powerfully how we tend to find what we're looking for. While I would not claim to have discovered the rest of the world (there's a lot of world out there still to discover for me), I have had a good bit of exposure. I've traveled. I've read. I've made a practice of reading books I disagree with. I've lived life. So, in what is I think a very real sense, I've discovered the world too. What's fascinating to me is that this discovery has only served to deepen my faith. Now that says nothing about me or you being right. It just highlights the fact that we tend to find what we're looking for. Now if what we find is connected to what we're looking for, then outcomes are very connected to motivations. These motivations, more than the arguments we use to justify our conclusions, are truly the cause of those conclusions. I think.


You said:
"This is a reasonable assumption. Particularly if you live in a time where science is a mystery. (Which would be right around the time the three major monotheisms were instigated). Regardless of any religious beliefs, it is an undeniable fact that we as humans have a desire and need to define our world. It is how we define ourselves! The most Atheistic scientist spends her life “defining” reality. This, I would argue, is derived from the same human impulse that creates religion. In other words, not an inclination to be despised, but like all tendencies, something to keep an eye on."


You previously quoted Pascal about the God shaped hole in our hearts. In this paragraph you call it the "human impulse" that moves us toward the religious and the spiritual. This explains much of human behavior and culture, doesn't it? There does seem to be a fairly universal movement toward finding meaning for our existence, discovering that our story exists within a larger story, an epic story, something cosmic and final. If there is a god, then that impulse was surely imbeded within us by this god to move us to seek this god. If there is no god, then this impulse is surely a cruel biological joke.


But the impulse itself does nothing to answer either possibility. It is a hunger. We must choose what we will eat. We decide what to do with that impulse. God's promise is that if we seek him, we will find him. The sad implication is that if we won't, we won't. We find what we're looking for.


And for those who are looking, there seems to be no end to the lengths God will go to make sure he's found. One of the interesting occurances in recent history involves the thousands of muslims who are coming to faith in Jesus because he is revealing himself to them in dreams. It's really amazing.


You also mentioned the era where science was a mystery as a time when mankind was more vulnerable to religion. I'm not sure I agree. Science is less a mystery now and religion abounds more than ever. Even the religion of science.

I believe religion is cultural

Definitely.

I believe Faith is personal, but informed by cultural experience. (Meaning that our own psychological profile combined with our cultural biases will combine to give us our disposition toward certain tenets).

Agreed.

I believe the “Truth” is beyond the capabilities of the human mind. (By “Truth” I mean any final dogmatic assertion put forth by ANY faith.)
This is, itself, a final dogmatic assertion.

I believe ALL religions are man made enterprises that have served the powerful and subjugated the weak. Furthermore, they are an easy fix to finding a "purpose" in life.

This too is a very dogmatic assertion. And it seems a bit narrow. Can you not think of a single instance where Christians have served the weak and subjugated the powerful? Not one single Christian who has loved and sacrificed self for others? I can think of lots and lots.

I believe ethical and moral behavior are intrinsically self-evident in a healthy human brain. (Therefore, assuring the health of human brains is in our collective best interest).

Agreed. C.S. Lewis deals extensively with this reality in "Mere Christianity", which I know you've read. That they are self evident is apparent.

That we typically know the right but do the wrong also seems apparent. If we are to be held finally accountable for this, then there is a need for a savior. If we are not to be held finally accountable for this, then do what you will! But even this (no final accountability) falls flat to me, for a self-evident right and wrong that is meaningless appears to me as arbitrary.

I believe the core of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are the same. Criticism of one, from the perspective of another, is a dangerous enterprise for an honest thinker.

All 3 are monotheistic, so they certainly share this core. The Quran denies essential core ideas of Judaism as well as Christian ideas about Jesus himself.

To claim that I cannot be an honest thinker and think critically is self defeating. To be an honest thinker, don't I have to think critically? All three religions claim exclusive truth. How can I be an honest thinker and not think critically about these claims? You have thought critically and rejected all three. I have thought critically and embraced one. But we are both honest thinkers here, in that we admit biases and attempt to come to reasonable conclusions.

I believe Man does “need” authority over him. We need accountability. I find accountability to my self and my fellow man to be the most compelling and most rewarding, for all parties involved.

Why does man need authority over him? Toward what good end do we need accountability? Defined by who? How does it even matter? Though right and wrong seem to be deeply imbedded in most people, there are those who have a very twisted ethic. Who are we to judge?

I desire to transcend both my cultural and personal prejudices. Although this is in the end impossible to the fullest extent, I also believe this is the metaphorical Mt. Everest for a human being to aspire to.

This is admirable, but to use your metaphor, there must be a summit to reach. There must be something objective to reach beyond your cultural and personal prejudices. If there's not, then none of it matters.


I love the Sting song "Shape of My Heart". His worldview demands that everything is a product of chance and statistics. But his love for her demands that this has meaning. Religion is man's attempt to construct this meaning and it gives the illusion of meaning only. Humanistic morality is simply another version of the same. New boss - same as the old boss. It is man's attempt to find and define God. He is me. But what if there is a way where God came to us, attempts to reach us, to define us.


This is the only possible way to have actual meaning rather than a mere illusion of meaning. Christianity's claim is that this is exactly what God has done. This appeal is to events in history, which either did or did not occur. Jesus rose from the dead. All Christian claims hinge on the veracity of this event. I'm familiar with the evidence for this event in history. This evidence is helpful, even confirming. But I admit, I was looking for him. We find what we're looking for. I found him.

#18 "Dude, What Happened?!?!" Post #1

A lot of folks have asked me to “tell my story”. How did I get from Bible believing born again Christian to unrepentant heretic? (That's supposed to be funny...)

Well, to tell that story here would be a waste of space. Also, not really what this blog is supposed to be about.

More importantly, it totally ruins a major arc of my best-selling memoirs (yet to be written, published, or even found interesting-why don’t people know how fascinating I am?).

So instead of me yammering on endlessly about my personal history of Faith and Doubt, I think it better to synopsize. Let’s face it, we live in an age where the book has become an anachronism. Let’s just keep it “bloggy”.

I “lost” my faith, when I discovered the rest of the world. The history, the religions, the philosophies. There are many common threads. The greatest of which seems to be biology.

We, unlike other species, do indeed seem to have what Pascal called a God-shaped hole. The “need” for religion seems to be intrinsic. A believer (of any faith) can reasonably derive from this that God (insert name as appropriate to your cultural experience) instills this in us. It’s the original “spark” of our Creator. 

This is a reasonable assumption. Particularly if you live in a time where science is a mystery. (Which would be right around the time the three major monotheisms were instigated). Regardless of any religious beliefs, it is an undeniable fact that we as humans have a desire and need to define our world. It is how we define ourselves! The most Atheistic scientist spends her life “defining” reality. This, I would argue, is derived from the same human impulse that creates religion. In other words, not an inclination to be despised, but like all tendencies, something to keep an eye on.

So, the basic reasons I chose to be “not Christian” can be dumbed down to this: 

• I believe religion is cultural
• I believe Faith is personal, but informed by cultural experience. (Meaning that our own psychological profile combined with our cultural biases will combine to give us our disposition toward certain tenets).
• I believe the “Truth” is beyond the capabilities of the human mind. (By “Truth” I mean any final dogmatic assertion put forth by ANY faith.)
• I believe ALL religions are man made enterprises that have served the powerful and subjugated the weak. Furthermore, they are an easy fix to finding a "purpose" in life.
• I believe ethical and moral behavior are intrinsically self-evident in a healthy human brain. (Therefore, assuring the health of human brains is in our collective best interest).
• I believe the core of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are the same. Criticism of one, from the perspective of another, is a dangerous enterprise for an honest thinker.
• I believe Man does “need” authority over him. We need accountability. I find accountability to my self and my fellow man to be the most compelling and most rewarding, for all parties involved.
• I desire to transcend both my cultural and personal prejudices. Although this is in the end impossible to the fullest extent, I also believe this is the metaphorical Mt. Everest for a human being to aspire to. 

I am NOT an Atheist. I am, however, an anti-theist. To be an Atheist requires a great deal of faith. To “know” that there is no Creator is far greater hubris to me than to pray to a mountain! A mountain is undeniably “greater” than I am. The desire to look at said mountain as a measuring stick of my place in the world is not only natural, but reasonable. One needs to know where one is in the world. You can only achieve that by building relationships with things beyond yourself.

So why am I an “anti-theist”? Simply because I know of no more clear definition to ascribe to myself. When you live for a great here-after, when there is a father figure that will make everything okay, when there is a redeemer that carries your water...then you divorce yourself from ultimate responsibility. (I anxiously await refutation of this!). Also, if you are a Theist then you have all the answers. There's no room for us to negotiate. The conversation is over before it has begun.

I think this is bad for the individual and deadly for society. Whether it’s God or Big Brother or Art or Academia or, dare I say it, even Atheism; it’s trouble. When any thought or philosophy is named and capitalized, it is preying upon one of the many parts of the human brain that has yet to evolve in correspondence with our understanding of the universe. It begets "-ism" which ineffably becomes religion.

That said; I still “talk to God”. Hypocritical, no? I can’t avoid it. There’s still enough superstition, tradition and fear in me that I can’t avoid it. To deny it would be further hypocrisy. Even my hypocrisy has it’s bounds. Intellectually, I believe I am talking to my self. Specifically, my subconscious mind. Emotionally....well, let's just say there's miles to go before we sleep.....

Like all people, I suffer from wish-thinking. I would like there to be a Creator. It is pleasing to me to believe that there is an over-arching purpose to this life. That there is a plan and that plan will work out properly in the end. I would like that Creator and that Plan to be full of love and light. 

But, I don’t NEED there to be a Creator. My life is full of love and light. It is brought to me by the kindness and grace of other people, this beautiful planet we share, and the amazing universe in which we live. And not least, the hard work I do in this world to offer grace and love to others. If, in the end, I die and that is the end...I’m okay with that. It’s unpleasant to think of not existing. My ego loathes it. So does yours, whomever you are. But it’s okay. Things must pass, so that other things may come.

I can’t wait for Alan to respond to this.

If the rest of you could please not waste your time trying to persuade me to D/FW style Christianity I would appreciate it. I'm grateful for most of the comments, but the tone and timbre of some are simply foolish. If you are concerned for my soul, then by all means pray. Pray without ceasing. But your arguments are like a banging gong or a crashing.....oh, never mind....

The floor is yours my friend....

Calling All Readers!

Jace here. Alan and I have been having a lot of fun with this and I hope to continue.  There are many things I'd love to discuss here. The comments we have received have been great. Some encouraging. Some combative. All intriguing.

I'd like to ask you readers what you'd like to see Alan and I discuss. I'm not promising we'll do it, but it might be interesting. When considering your suggestions, please be mindful of our intent here. Although Alan and I could both get on our respective bully-pulpits and bludgeon our friendship into non-existence...that just ain't gonna happen. Those of you looking for a "winner" in these pages will have to bring your own prejudice to trial. Just as Alan and I do with each post.

That said, please send in your suggestions.

Peace, Love, and Good Happy Stuff,

Jace

#17 "Biblical Authority" Post #7

I didn't mean to gloss over the point about the church's record regarding faith and science. It is clear religious folk have botched this quite often, Copernicus and Galileo proving an excellent example of this kind of wrong thinking about science. But let's not pretend science is the innocent victim here. It is a far stretch to assume scientists stand alone as the unbiased, objective, agendaless heroes of a new world order. We all have our biases don't we?

The difficulty with Genesis, as I've pointed out in a previous post, is that it has been drafted to serve as an answer to when and how by both sides of the argument, which I think misses the point entirely. Both sides of the creation / evolution debate generally assume that time is constant, which, I believe, Einstein disproved some time ago.

I must admit that I struggle with stem cell research. I've no doubt that helpful information can be gained from such research and that some benefit is possible through their use. Science is certainly capable of such wonders. But I cannot yet find my way for this noble end to justify the means. Adult stem cell research is great, and from what I can tell very promising, but destroying a human embryo to harvest a stem cell - this I have problems with. But surely this is not my lack of faith in science, but rather my faith in the value of human life conferred at conception.

Of course you are also married to a mysterious, fascinating woman. I use this example to illustrate two different types of knowing, one of which provides a meaningful context for the other. Your point that Steph doesn't tell you to believe the earth is flat is well made, but I believe it misses my point. I'm not telling you to believe the earth is flat, and I'm not defending the Church for telling you to believe that. They got that wrong.

My mom didn't let me watch the TV show Batman when I was a kid. She felt it encouraged violence and was from the devil. I think she got that wrong (surely the devil could do better, or worse depending on perspective). But I'm not going to stop believing in my mom to fix it.

The difficulty for me with this whole line of argument is it's circularity. Those who claim certainty is not possible are generally overly certain about this.

#16 "Biblical Authority" Post #6

A quick reply and clarification. That last bit I wrote about "the fruit" of the Tree of Knowledge being unpalatable to the Church isn't something to gloss over. In modern America (and I use the word "modern" with some trepidation) their is an ongoing debate about science.

And not just the Theory of Evolution versus Creationism/Intelligent Design or whatever the next euphemism for "Genesis" might be. (Oops, side bar, which Creation story in Genesis is the real one? Or do we just combine the two based upon how we feel?).

We also had the lovely Terry Shiavo debacle of a few years back. There's the ongoing debate on stem cell research. It's been this way for a while.

Religious people, particularly their leaders, don't care much for science. Ask Copernicus or Galileo.

Again and again, we see that "knowledge" must take a backseat to "faith". I too have a mysterious wife. One I learn more about daily. Yet the mystery is impenetrable at times. WHAT IS SHE TALKING ABOUT!?!?!? Do I love her? Beyond understanding. Does she love me? More than I have earned.

My point is, I don't have trouble understanding Grace or even Revelation. But my wife doesn't tell me what is black is white, or that the earth is flat, or that I should be careful "thinking that way". She encourages me to explore and learn.

Also, she's a great kisser.;)

#15 "Biblical Authority" Post 6

I'm going to address some of your points in reverse order, beginning with your last statements about knowledge. You said...

"Finally, I find it odd that the Tree of Knowledge gets such a bad rap, when obviously it has been used in compiling such information as you have presented here. Perhaps it’s the taste of said Tree’s fruit that religion finds so nauseating."

 

You point out that I tend to utilize the very knowledge I decry. I want to again make an important distinction. Knowledge is great as a source of data. If I were to try and plug my computer's power cable into a data port, I might get frustrated. Knowledge has it's usefulness, but it is limited.

 

I'm a learner. I love to read, study, think deeply, and generally work with knowledge in a great many ways. I'm not claiming this is bad. It's just not my source of life or power. Knowledge is not bad. When my own knowledge of good and evil drives me, then self becomes my source. When my root system is God rather than self, knowledge is then useful in it's proper place.

 

Prior to this, you asked what my "relationship" is built upon, if not knowledge. Let me answer it this way. I've been married to Nancy for 16 years. During that time I've learned a lot of accurate knowledge about her and I'm learning more and more all the time. But this accumulation of data, though interesting, has been incidental to the actual experiential basis of my relationship with her. On our wedding night I didn't pull out a note pad and pen and ask "Ok babe, tell me everything." I know her and I also know about her. One is experiential and relational, the other is informational. It is the relationship that gives meaningful context to the information.

 

In a similar way, my head is crammed with lots of information about God and the Bible. I don't claim my informational understanding of God to be perfect. I'm still learning, growing, and adjusting all the time as I continue to learn and discover more. I think I have a reasonable faith, in that my faith doesn't violate my reason. But reason is not my source. I did not ascend to God by my thinking. He came to me.

 

If I had to boil it down to the real root system of my faith I would have to say it is experiential and relational. I've just heard God's voice too many times. I've seen and experienced his power too many times. I've cast out too many demons and seen too many sick people experience healing. I've spent too much time pressed to the carpet unable to move because of the holy weight of his presence. I've experienced too much miraculous provision. Rom 10:17 says that faith comes from hearing his voice. It is a result of revelation not reason. I have a life time of hearing his voice and seeing his power. I know him. I trust him. I love him because he first loved me.

 

What is the role of the Bible in all this? The Living God I've come to know is the God of scripture. He is Jesus. YHWH. The grace that has transformed me is the grace promised me in scripture. God interacts with me in and through scripture and in so many of the ways I see him acting and moving within the scriptural narrative. My life so aligns with the reality I find in scripture that Occam's Razor demands the simplest explanation for this.

 

This August I was in Israel and one day we visited Tel Megiddo. This hill exists as a hill because 27 different civilizations have been built upon it and wiped out over the centuries by war, plague, famine and the like. It's near a source of water and before the days of irrigation such sights were repeatedly built upon, and lived upon by generations. Excavation has revealed layer after layer of civilization dating back thousands of years. In 1 Kings 9 there is the account of the cities that Solomon built, one of which was Megiddo, which were used to house his many horses and chariots. I've stood at the level where they excavated down to the time of Solomon seen the multitude of troughs necessary to feed and water that many horses. I've seen the grain storage silos. It's all there, just as you'd expect if the text is accurate historically. I was fascinated. Such confirmation is plentiful. Lots of that data exists. I love it. I enjoy it. I find it confirming. But it's not why I believe.

 

It is not reading about Nancy's brown eyes that captivates me. It is gazing into them.

 

“One thing have I asked of the Lord, that will I seek after: that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life, to gaze upon the beauty of the Lord and to inquire in his temple. ” (Psalm 27:4, ESV)

Finally, I think if a previous epistle of Paul to the church in Corinth were discovered and authenticated, it would be of tremendous value. It would shed amazing cultural, historical, and contextual light upon the two letters we already have. But I would not add it to the canon for it would violate the criteria of catholicity. It is not a book that has been widely accepted and followed by the community of faith throughout the history of the Church.

I read lots of books that aren't the Bible though, and am tremendously helped by many of them, so this in no way diminishes the value of such a book if it were every discovered.

I really loved the Gospel of Judas. It's such an amazing example of the story of Jesus viewed through gnostic philosophical lenses. It lacks the grit and sweat of the synoptics and John, but it is so helpful in providing some context for the kinds of ideas Paul addressed in Colossians and John in his epistles. Context that is essential, for a view of things that exalts the spiritual and downgrades and separates the material is ever attempting to creep in to the way we see things, undermining not only the incarnation of Christ, but reducing the beauty and richness of everyday life out of alignment with the reality of things.

So - That's my reverse order response. My ears are ringing. ;-)

Much love,

Alan

#14 "Biblical Authority" Post 5

First of all, please let me answer, from my perspective, the few study questions you posit in the beginning of your notes. I’ll additionally add what I think the “correct” answers are; meaning what I suspect your thesis is alluding to. This makes it more fun, because it adds yet more grist for the mill of my repudiation!

Question 1:

What If?

• A document was discovered next week in Greece
• Purporting itself to be a lost letter of Paul to the Corinthians. (see 1 Cor 5:9)
• Appearing to be the letter spoken of in 1 Corinthians
• Widely attested by scholars to be authentic
• Should this letter be included in the Bible? Why or why not?

I would say “yes”, it should be put in the Bible. Why? Because it is deemed “authentic”. Authentic is a synonym for many words, some of which are; correct, accurate, genuine, real, true, and, dare I say, Canonical?

I think the “correct” answer is no. Why? I’ll allow you to answer that.

The reason I would say yes is simple. Truth is truth. Authentic is authentic. New knowledge is good knowledge. Is it better knowledge? Perhaps not. But it is more knowledge. I’ll get back to this....

Question 2

Which Came First – Acceptance or Formal Definition?

• Did the worshipping communities of Christ followers begin to accept and live by the New Testament Canon of scripture once the Church formally defined it?

Or

• Did the Church formally define the New Testament Canon in recognition of those documents the worshipping communities of Christ followers had already accepted and were already living by?

My answer is, “YES!” To both questions. In some cases they followed precedent in others they followed expedience, or more accurately, precedent set by the political or spiritual ideas of the religious people in positions of power at the varied councils.

The “correct” answer, I believe, will be option 2. Why? Because this will allow that “eye-witness” accountants of Jesus were practicing the orthodox beliefs espoused by him and his original 12 disciples. They were there. They saw it. These are the true beliefs. And these accounts are what inform the Canonization process.

The reason I think this is hooey is because of the sausage factory involved in amassing these books.

Now we could go into the provable and documented history of the Canonization process, but I fear collective boredom encroaching. Most of the folks who read this blog are aware of Constantine, Augustine, Nicea, Trent, Tyndale, Marcion, Luther, etc. Per our last topic, “-isms”, it’s important to note that the Canonized Bible may look a little different depending on which church you attend. Or which country you live in. Or which translation. Or what century you lived in.

This is important. Alan, you repeatedly embrace the notion that “relationship” trumps “knowledge”. Although I will concede it’s a rather inarguable position, I find it very curious what this “relationship” is built upon. Is it your understanding of Scripture? Is it a warm feeling you get in your abdomen? Is it the traditions of your own experiences and the experiences conveyed to you by others? I’m guessing some combination of all of these. (Unless you’ve got your own burning bush story. Are you holding out on me dude?)

In short, I find it fascinating that in all things religious, it is considered perfectly reasonable to pick and choose which facts we use. We can gloss over this insanely messy process that transpired over centuries of time, because it is a “miracle” and this is simply how God saw fit to bring His word to us. As Occam’s razor has proven so beneficial in lowly matters such as medicine, cosmology, physics and the like perhaps the Good Book could do with a shave.

Finally, I find it odd that the Tree of Knowledge gets such a bad rap, when obviously it has been used in compiling such information as you have presented here. Perhaps it’s the taste of said Tree’s fruit that religion finds so nauseating.

Jace

#13 "Biblical Authority" Post #4

Jace,
You specifically asked about the formation of the canon of scripture. I thought I would throw a few thoughts out about that. I developed a class on this subject and taught it at my church last year. In reviewing my notes, it appears they are pretty thorough and represent my current view and understanding well. I paste my notes below. I'm quite sure they will generate some discussion.
Alan

Why These 66 Books?

A Study on the Canon of Scripture

Week One – The Criteria of Canonicity

Week Two – The Formation of the Canon

Week One: The Criteria of Canonicity

What If?

• A document was discovered next week in Greece
• Purporting itself to be a lost letter of Paul to the Corinthians. (see 1 Cor 5:9)
• Appearing to be the letter spoken of in 1 Corinthians
• Widely attested by scholars to be authentic
• Should this letter be included in the Bible? Why or why not?

Break up into groups of 3 or 4 to discuss and be prepared to share your conclusions with the rest of the class.

Which Came First – Acceptance or Formal Definition?

• Did the worshipping communities of Christ followers begin to accept and live by the New Testament Canon of scripture once the Church formally defined it?

Or

• Did the Church formally define the New Testament Canon in recognition of those documents the worshipping communities of Christ followers had already accepted and were already living by?

How might the answer to this question affect our view of scriptural authority?

Two Possible Meanings of Canonization

• “The process by which certain texts come to be regarded as holy or authoritative.”[1]
• Authoritative Authorship is Recognized
• Consistency of Teaching is Recognized
• Universal Applicability is Recognized
• Various Layers of Meaning Recognized
• Contemporary Relevance is Recognized
• The physical book itself is handled with reverence
• Citation as Scripture: “It is written…” or “As the scripture says…”
• “The development of a list which contains all the holy books, and whose effect it is to say that no other books have this status.”[2]

What is the Canon?

“Canon - This word is derived from a Hebrew and Greek word denoting a reed or cane. Hence it means something straight, or something to keep straight; and hence also a rule, or something ruled or measured. It came to be applied to the Scriptures, to denote that they contained the authoritative rule of faith and practice, the standard of doctrine and duty.”^[3]

“Canon- It means the list of books contained in scripture, the list of books recognized as worthy to be included in the sacred writings of a worshipping community.”^[4]

The Rule of Faith

“Before the word ‘canon’ came to be used in the sense of ‘list’, it was used in another sense by the church—in the phrase ‘the rule of faith’ or ‘the rule of truth’. In the earlier Christian centuries this was a summary of Christian teaching, believed to reproduce what the apostles themselves taught, by which any system of doctrine offered for Christian acceptance, or any interpretation of biblical writings, was to be assessed. But when once the limits of holy scripture came to be generally agreed upon, holy scripture itself came to be regarded as the rule of faith.” ^[5]

Which Documents are included in the Canon?

• The Old Testament – The TaNaKh
• Torah: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy
• Nevi’im (Prophets) – Joshua, Judges, I Samuel, II Samuel, I Kings, II Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habukkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi
• Ketuvim (Writings) - Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra and Nehemiah, I Chronicles, and II Chronicles.

• The New Testament
• The Gospels
• Synoptic Gospels – Matthew, Mark, and Luke
• John
• Acts
• Pauline Epistles – Romans, 1&2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1&2 Thessalonians, 1&2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon
• General Epistles – Hebrews, James, 1&2 Peter, 1,2 & 3 John, Jude
• Revelation

What are the Criteria for Canonical acceptance?

F.F. Bruce defines 5 main criteria:

• Apostolic Authority (validation if not authorship)
• Apostolic Authorship
• Apostolic Validation

“Even at an earlier period, apostolic authorship in the direct sense was not insisted on, if some form of apostolic authority could be established.”^[6]

• Antiquity
• Closely related to Apostolic Authority
• For a book to be Apostolic in authorship or validation it needs to be from the age in which the Apostles lived.

“If a writing was the work of an apostle or of someone closely associated with an apostle, it must belong to the apostolic age. Writings of later date, whatever their merit, could not be included among the apostolic or canonical books.”^[7]

• Orthodoxy
• Also closely related to Apostolic Authority
• The content of the book must be congruent with the understood Rule of Faith, the widely accepted understanding of the teaching handed down from the Apostles.

“By ‘orthodoxy’ they meant the apostolic faith—the faith set forth in the undoubted apostolic writings and maintained in the churches which had been founded by apostles.”^[8]

• Catholicity – The document must have been widely accepted and lived by among the broadest possible range of churches and the broadest possible range of time.

A work which enjoyed only local recognition was not likely to be acknowledged as part of the canon of the catholic church. On the other hand, a work which was acknowledged by the greater part of the catholic church would probably receive universal recognition sooner or later.^[9]

• Inspiration
• Widely regarded as having been authored by God through human agency.
• Carrying the authority of God by virtue of containing his words and message.

Bruce also identifies these important issues:

• What books “…which might, as a last resort, be handed over to the police and those which must be preserved, if need be, at the cost of life itself.”^[10]

• What documents “…might be used for settling doctrinal questions from those which were generally edifying.”^[11]

Week Two – The Formation of the Canon

Source vs. Stimulus for Canonization

“It has already been indicated that God is the source of canonicity. A book is canonical because it is inspired, and it is inspired because God moved in and through the men who wrote it. In this sense, canonicity is passive; it is something received from God. There is also an active sense of the word canonization, the sense in which the people of God were active in the recognition and collection of the books God had inspired. The historical process of canonization is concerned with this latter sense.”^[12]

The Stimulus for Canonization

• The demands of the churches

“…in order to know which books should be read in the churches (cf. 1 Thess. 5:27 and 1 Tim. 4:13) and which books could be definitely applied to the theological and practical problems of the Christian church (cf. 2 Tim. 3:16-17), it became necessary to have a complete collection of the books that could provide the authoritative norm for faith and practice.” ^[13]

• Heretical Stimulus

“At least as early as a.d. 140 the heretical Marcion accepted only limited sections of the full New Testament canon. Marcion’s heretical canon, consisting of only Luke’s gospel and ten of Paul’s epistles, pointed up clearly the need to collect a complete canon of New Testament Scriptures.” ^[14]

• Gnosticism
• Dualism
• World created by the lesser god
• Lower god – Demiurge
• Fates
• “…unable to perceive the upper heavenly realm and falsely consider themselves to be ultimate.”^[15]
• The higher God works subversively to introduce the breath of life to mankind in the creation process and to bring salvation to man from the creator god.
• Matter is a prison that imprisons man.
• The goal is to escape the material realm into a spiritual reality.
• Those who are enlightened understand this truth and have received this special “knowledge” or “wisdom” – gnosis – and have thereby already begun to escape this material world.
• Docetism
• Early heresy in the church
• Jesus only “appeared” to have a physical body.
• Jesus only “appeared” to be crucified and suffer.

1 John 4:2 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,(ESV)

2 John 7 7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist.(ESV)

• Marcion (ca 85-160)
• OT God is different than the NT God.
• OT God similar to Gnostic Demiurge
• Produced his own Canon including an edited version of Luke: The Gospel of Marcion, as well as 10 of Paul’s letters.

• Missionary Stimulus

“Christianity had spread rapidly to other countries, and there was the need to translate the Bible into those other languages (see chaps. 27-29). As early as the first half of the second century the Bible was translated into Syriac and Old Latin. But because the missionaries could not translate a Bible that did not exist, attention was necessarily drawn to the question of which books really belonged to the authoritative Christian canon.” ^[16]

• Persecutions and Politics

“The Diocletian persecutions of about a.d. 302/303-5 provided forceful motivation for the church to sort, sift, and settle on the New Testament Scriptures. For certainly the books they would risk their lives to preserve must have been considered sacred to them.”^[17]

Constantine’s Influence

“Ironically enough, within twenty-five years of the edict to destroy the Scriptures, Constantine took positive action to preserve them. He commissioned Eusebius, the historian, to prepare fifty copies of the Scriptures at imperial expense in the following letter, from “Victor Constantinus, Maximus Augustus, to Eusebius”:

I have thought it expedient to instruct your Prudence to order fifty copies of the sacred Scriptures, the provision and use of which you know to be most needful for the instruction of the Church, to be written on prepared parchment in a legible manner, and in a convenient, portable form, by professional transcribers thoroughly practiced in their art. The catholicus of the diocese has also received instructions from our Clemency to be careful to furnish all things necessary for the preparation of such copies; and it will be for you to take special care that they are completed with as little delay as possible.

Both of those political actions prompted a careful examination and scrutiny of all religious writings in order to discover which were truly authoritative. And, in the same century as Diocletian’s persecutions and Constantine’s letter, the church began to give official recognition to the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, that is, in a.d. 363 (at Laodicea), and in a.d. 397 (at Carthage).”^[18]

Progressive Collection

• The Principle of Canonization
• Inspiration
• Apostolic Authority/Approval

Ephesians 2:19-20 19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,(ESV)

John 16:13 13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.(ESV)

“It seems much better to agree with Louis Gaussen, B. B. Warfield, Charles Hodge, J. N. D. Kelly, and most Protestants that it is apostolic authority, or apostolic approval, that was the primary test for canonicity, and not merely apostolic authorship.”^[19]

• The Process of Canonization
• Selecting Procedure

Both John & Luke imply a process of selection.

“John implies that there was a selecting process going on among the apostles themselves, dealing with the problem of which particular truths should be preserved in written form.”^[20]

John 20:30 30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;(ESV)

John 21:25 25 Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.(ESV)

Luke 1:1-4 1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, 3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.(ESV)

Paul also references the authority of the oral tradition being communicated apostolically.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 13 And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.(ESV)

1 Corinthians 11:2 2 Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you.(ESV)

John gives an example of and brings correction to an error in the transmission of Jesus’ words.

John 21:23 23 So the saying spread abroad among the brothers that this disciple was not to die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he was not to die, but, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?”(ESV)

• Reading Procedure

“Another indication within the New Testament itself that a canon was being formed is the repeated injunction that certain books should be read to the churches.” ^[21]

1 Thessalonians 5:27 27 I put you under oath before the Lord to have this letter read to all the brothers.(ESV)

Revelation 1:3 3 Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near.(ESV)

• Circulating Procedure

“Those writings that were read as authoritative to the churches were circulated and collected by the churches.” ^[22]

Revelation 1:11 11 saying, “Write what you see in a book and send it to the seven churches, to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamum and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea.”(ESV)

Colossians 4:15-16 15 Give my greetings to the brothers at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house. 16 And when this letter has been read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you also read the letter from Laodicea.(ESV)

• Collecting Procedure

“The circulating procedure no doubt led to the habit of collecting prophetic and apostolic writings,”^[23]

2 Peter 3:15-16 15 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, 16 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.(ESV)

• Quotation Procedure

Jude Quotes Peter

Jude 17-18 17 But you must remember, beloved, the predictions of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ. 18 They said to you, “In the last time there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passions.”(ESV)

2 Peter 3:1-3 1 This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved. In both of them I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, 2 that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles, 3 knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires.(ESV)

Paul Quotes both Luke and Deuteronomy as Scripture

1 Timothy 5:17-18 17 Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. 18 For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.”(ESV)

Deuteronomy 25:4 4 “You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain.(ESV)

Luke 10:6-7 6 And if a son of peace is there, your peace will rest upon him. But if not, it will return to you. 7 And remain in the same house, eating and drinking what they provide, for the laborer deserves his wages. Do not go from house to house.(ESV)

• Citation in the Early Church (Entire section below taken from Geisler)

What has been said of the development of the New Testament canon, as seen in the inspired writings of the New Testament itself, is even more apparent in the writings of the younger contemporaries, the apostolic Fathers. A sample survey will suffice to show that by the middle of the second century every book of the New Testament was referred to, presumably as authoritative (canonical), by at least one of these Fathers.

The Gospels.

1.     Matthew was quoted by the Epistle of Pseudo-Barnabas (c. 70-79) on several occasions, for example, 4:14 (Matt. 20:16, 22:14); 5:12 (Matt. 26:31); 6:13 (Matt. 19:30; 20:16); 7:3 (Matt. 27:34) and 12:11 (Matt. 22:45); in addition to several allusions. The Didache (c. 70-130) quotes Matthew rather extensively (cf. Matt. 6:9-13).

2.     Mark was cited by the Epistle of Pseudo-Barnabas in only one clear example, 5:9 (Mark 2:17), but 12:11 quotes the parallel passage in Matthew 22:45 and/or Luke 20:44. Papias (c. 70-163) wrote five treatises entitled Interpretation of the Oracles of the Lord (c. 120), which included the four gospels.

3.     Luke was revised by the Gnostic Marcion (c. a.d. 140) and appeared in his sharply abridged canon of Scriptures. The Muratorian Fragment (c. 170-80) began with Mark, and refers to Luke as the third gospel and follows with John, Acts, etc.

4.     John was cited by Papias and listed in the Muratorian Canon. It was also cited and alluded to in the epistles of Ignatius (c. 110-17), for example, his Ephesians 5:2 (John 6:33) and 17:1 (John 2:3). Clement of Rome (c. 95-97) cited John 17:3 in his Epistle to the Corinthians 43:5.

Acts Acts appeared in the Muratorian Fragment, and was quoted by Polycarp (69-155), the disciple of John, in his Philippians 1:2 (Acts 2:24). The Shepherd of Hermas quotes Acts in several instances for example, Vision 2: 2.7 (Acts 10:35); Vision 3: 7.3 (Acts 2:38; 10:48; 9:5); Similitude 9: 28.2 (Acts 5:26); 10: 2.3; 4. (Acts 2:11, 2:1).

The Epistles

1.     Romans is frequently cited by Clement of Rome in his Epistle to the Corinthians (also identified as 1 Corinthians of Clement of Rome), for example, 33:1 (Rom. 6:1); 35:6 (Rom. 1:29-32); 50:6 (Rom. 4:7-9). Polycarp quotes Romans on several occasions in his Epistle to the Philippians, for example, 5:2 (Rom. 8:7); 6:1 (Rom. 2:7); 6:3 (Rom. 14:10, 12); 10:1 (Rom. 3:8). The Didache (5:1-2) cites Romans 1:29-30 and 12:9, respectively.

2.     First Corinthians was cited in the Didache 10:6 (1 Cor. 16:22); 13:1-2 (1 Cor. 9:13-14); and 16:6 (1 Cor. 15:22; cf. Matt. 24:30-31). The Shepherd, Mandate 3:6 (1 Cor. 7:11; cf. Matt. 5:32; 19:9; and Mark 10:11); and Mandate 4:4.1 (1 Cor. 7:38-40) also cites Corinthians.

3.     Second Corinthians was cited by Polycarp in his Philippians 2:2 (2 Cor. 4:14); 4:1 (2 Cor. 6:7), as it was by the Shepherd, Similitude 9:13, 7-8 (2 Cor. 13:11); and the Epistle to Diognetus (c. 150), 5:7 (2 Cor. 10:3); 5:12 (2 Cor. 6:9-10); 5:15-16 (2 Cor. 4:2; 6:10).

4.     Galatians was frequently quoted by many writers such as Polycarp, his Philippians 3:3 (Gal. 4:26); 5:1 (Gal. 6:7); 5:3 (Gal. 5:17); Epistle to Diognetus 6:5 (Gal. 5:7); and 10:5 (Gal. 6:2).

5.     Ephesians, one of Paul’s prison epistles, was cited by Clement of Rome in his 1 Corinthians 46:6 (Eph. 4:4-6); 59:3 (Eph. 1:18); by Ignatius in his Smyrnaeans 1:2 (Eph. 2:6); Polycarp 1:3 (Eph. 4:2); 5:1 (Eph. 5:25, 29); and alluded to in Pseudo-Barnabas 6:10 (Eph. 2:10; 4:22–24).

6.     Philippians was often quoted by Polycarp in his Philippians 9:2 (Phil. 2:16); 11:3 (Phil. 4:15); 12:3 (Phil. 3:18); and Shepherd, Similitude 5:3.8 (Phil. 4:18); 9:13. 7-8 (Phil. 2:2; 3:16; 4:2); and by Ignatius, Smyrnaeans 4:2 (Phil. 4:13); 11:3 (Phil. 3:15).

7.     Colossians was cited by Polycarp, Philippians 10:1 (Col. 1:23); 11:2 (Col. 3:5); Ignatius, Ephesians 10:2 (Col. 1:23); Trallians 5:2 (Col. 1:6); and Epistle to Diognetus10:7 (Col. 4:1).

8.     First Thessalonians 5:3 was cited several times in the Shepherd, Vision 3:6.3; 3:9.2, 10; Similitude 8:7.2; the Didache 16:7 also quotes this epistle (1 Thess. 4:6); it is used by Ignatius, Ephesians 10:1 (1 Thess. 5:17); and Romans 2:1 (1 Thess. 2:4).

9.     Second Thessalonians is less frequently cited, but Ignatius uses it as the basis of his statement in his Philadelphians 4:3 (2 Thess. 3:5). Polycarp also uses this epistle in his Philippians 11:3 (2 Thess. 1:4) and 11:4 (2 Thess. 3:15). Dionysius of Corinth (c. a.d. 170 also quotes this epistle.

10.     First Timothy was repeatedly used by Clement of Rome in his 1 Corinthians, as it was in Polycarp’s Philippians. The Shepherd, Similitude 8:2.9, cites 1 Timothy 2:4, and the Didache 3:1-2, quotes 1 Timothy 5:17-18.

11.     Second Timothy is used in Pseudo-Barnabas 5:6 (2 Tim. 1:10), as it is in the Shepherd, Mandate 3:2 (2 Tim. 1:14).

12.     Titus is frequently quoted by Clement of Rome in his 1 Corinthians; Pseudo-Barnabas 1:4-6 and 14:5 cite Titus 1:1-3, 7 and 2:14, respectively, as does the Epistle to Diognetus 9:1-2 (Titus 3:3-5).

13.     Philemon was a personal letter, and its nature is reflected in its use: Ignatius makes allusions to it, and the Muratorian Fragment lists thirteen of Paul’s epistles, which would include Philemon.

14.     Hebrews was frequently cited by Clement of Rome in his 1 Corinthians; it was also quoted in the Ancient Homily (often called 2 Corinthians of Clement of Rome) 11:6 (Heb. 10:23); the Shepherd frequently used this epistle, for example, Vision 2:2.7 (Heb. 11:33); Vision 2:3.2 (Heb. 3:12).

15.     James is repeatedly used in the 1 Corinthians of Clement of Rome, as it is in the Shepherd Vision 3:9.6 (James 5:4); Mandate 2:2.7 (James 4:11; 1:27); 11:5 (James 3:15).

16.     First Peter is used in Pseudo-Barnabas 4:12 (1 Peter 1:17); 6:2 (1 Peter 2:6) 7:2 (1 Peter 4:5); the Shepherd quotes 1 Peter 5:7, 4:13, 15–16; 4:14 in Vision 3:11.3, Similitude 9:28.5, and 9:28.6, respectively.

17.     Second Peter (2:6–9) is quoted in 1 Corinthians 11:1 by Clement of Rome. It is also used in Pseudo-Barnabas 15:4 (2 Peter 3:8).

18.     First John is cited in the Shepherd, Mandate 3:1 (1 John 2:27); Similitude 6:5-6 (1 John 3:22).

19.     Second John is listed in the Muratorian Fragment, and is cited in Polycarp, Philippians 7:1 (2 John 7).

20.     Third John is listed in the Muratorian Fragment.

21.     Jude is listed in the Muratorian Fragment and is cited in The Martyrdom of St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna. Preface (Jude 2).

Revelation The book of Revelation was cited in the Didache 10:3 (Rev. 4:11); 16:4 (Rev. 13:2, 13), as well as in the Shepherd,Vision 4:2.1 (Rev. 21:2). Papias accepted the authority of Revelation, and it was cited in the Ancient Homily 17:7 (Rev. 11:3) and by Justin Martyr and Dionysius of Corinth.

Although many of these citations may be disputed if modern critical approaches are used, it should be noted that by the standards of classical civilization they would be considered legitimate quotations. Therefore, works are regarded as quoted when they would possibly be misquoted or alluded to in modern parlance. As a result, the first hundred years of the existence of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament reveal that virtually every one of them was quoted as authoritative and recognized as canonical by men who were themselves the younger contemporaries of the Apostolic Age.

^[24]

Individual Citations

Some outstanding Fathers of the second century show their acceptance of most of New Testament canon, and there is no reason to believe they did not also accept the rest of it. Three examples may serve as representative of the period, which had widespread witness to the inspiration and text of the NewTestament (see discussions in chaps. 7 and 22).

Polycarp (c. a.d. 150). The younger contemporary and disciple of the apostle John, Polycarp quotes from Matthew, John, the first ten of Paul’s epistles, Peter, and and 2 John. Because most of the rest of the books were small, it could not be expected that he would refer to them. As a result, the argument from silence that Polycarp did not know or accept them is a weak one at best.

Justin Martyr (c. a.d. 140). Justin Martyr considered all the gospels as Scripture, plus most of Paul’s epistles, as well as Peter and Revelation. It is noteworthy that Justin had occasion to refer to Mark, Luke, John, and Revelation, not cited by Polycarp, and not to refer to Philippians or Timothy, which would tend to confirm the thesis that both men accepted more books than those from which they quoted.

Irenaeus (c. a.d. 170). The first early Father who himself quoted almost every book of the New Testament was Irenaeus. As a young boy he had heard Polycarp, and the experience made a lasting impact on this first great missionary to France (see chap. 7) He quoted or considered as authentic twenty-three of the twenty-seven books, omitting only Philemon, James, 2 Peter, and 3 John.

Clement of Alexandria (c. a.d. 200) has almost an identical list, with the exception of his omission of 2 Timothy and 2 John. Philemon and 3 John may not have been quoted because of their brevity, leaving only 2 Peter and James in question. In that connection it is interesting to note that the Shepherd (c.a.d. 140) referred to James, and the book of 2 Peter had already been quoted as Scripture in Jude. Thus, before the end of the second century some individuals had recognized almost all of the twenty-seven books, and the remainder were recognized by others even before that time.

^[25]

Translations

The Old Syriac This translation of the New Testament was in circulation in Syria about a.d. 400, but represented a text dating from the end of the second century. It included all of the twenty-seven New Testament books except 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation. Brooke Foss Westcott notes: “Its general agreement with our own [canon] is striking and important;and its omissions admit of easy explanation.”

The Old Latin This was translated prior to a.d. 200 and served as the Bible of the Western church as the Syriac did in the East. This Latin version contained all the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, and 1 and 2 Peter.

The Muratorian Canon (a.d. 170). Aside from Marcion’s heretical canon (a.d. 140), the earliest canonical list is in the Muratorian Fragment. This list coincides exactly with the Old Latin, omitting only Hebrews, James, and 1 and 2 Peter. Westcott argues for the probability of a break in this manuscript that may once have included those books. It does seem strange that Hebrews and Peter should be omitted while Philemon and 3 John were included. This feature is the opposite of the lists of Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria.^[26]

Eusebius (c. 317)

“As can be seen from the examination of quotations by individuals and canonical lists, a few books were rather persistently unrecognized. Eusebius summed up the situation in the early-fourth century by acknowledging all twenty-seven books, but stating that James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude were “spoken against” (Greek: Antilegomena).”^[27]

Athanasius (c. 367)

The “Father of Orthodoxy,” clearly and emphatically listed all twenty-seven books as canonical, saying,

Again it is not tedious to speak of the books of the New Testament. These are, the four gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Afterwards, the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles (called Catholic), seven, viz. of James, one; of Peter, two; of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this order. The first, to the Romans; then two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians; then to the Philippians; then to the Colossians; after these, two to the Thessalonians, and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John.^[28]

Synod at Hippo (A.D. 393)

• Heavily influenced by Augustine
• NT Canon ratified agreeing with current 27 books
• Also ratified the Apocrypha and OT.

Synod at Carthage (A.D. 397)

• Augustine
• Affirmed the ratification from Hippo.

The Categorization of Books within and outside the Canon

• Homologoumena – Accepted by all
• Includes 20 of the 27 NT works accept those in the Antilegomena category.
• Antilegomena – Disputed by some
• Hebrews – questioned due to anonymity
• James – questioned due to veracity
• 2 Peter – questioned due to genuineness of origin
• 2 & 3 John – questioned due to genuineness of origin
• Jude – questioned due to authenticity of content
• Revelation
• Pseudepigrapha – Rejected by all
• The Gospel of Thomas
• The Gospel of the Ebionites
• The Gospel of Peter
• Protevangelium of James
• The Gospel of the Hebrews
• The Gospel of the Egyptians
• The Gospel of the Nazaraeans
• The Gospel of Philip
• The Gospel of Thomas the Athlete
• The Gospel According to Mathias
• The Gospel of Judas
• Epistle of an Apostle
• The Apocyphon of John
• The Gospel of Truth
• Apocrypha – Accepted by some
• Epistle of Pseudo-Barnabas
• Epistle to the Corinthians
• Second Epistle of Clement
• Shepherd of Hermas
• Didache – Teaching of the Twelve
• Apocalypse of Peter
• The Acts of Paul and Thecia
• Epistle to the Laodiceans
• The Gospel According to the Hebrews
• Epistle of Polycarp to the Philipians
• The Seven Epistles of Ignatius

The Value of the New Testament Pseudepigrapha In general, these books have no positive theological value, and almost no historical value, except as they reflect the religious consciousness of the church during early centuries. Their value may be summarized as follows:

1.     They contain, no doubt, the kernel of some correct traditions that, by careful “demythologizing,” may furnish some supplementary historical facts about the early church.

2.     They reflect the ascetic, docetic and gnostic tendencies, and heresies of early Christianity.

3.     They show a popular desire for information not given in the canonical gospels, such as information about the childhood of Jesus, and the lives of the apostles.

4.     They manifest an illegitimate tendency to glorify Christianity by means of pious frauds.

5.     They display an healthy desire to find support for doctrinal interests and heretical teachings under the guise of apostolic authority.

6.     They reveal an wholesome attempt to fill up supposed lacks in the canonical writings.

7.     They demonstrate the incurable tendency of depraved curiosity to arrive at heretical and fanciful embellishments of Christian truth (e.g., Mary worship).

The Value of the New Testament Apocrypha There is no doubt that the theological and historical value of most of these books is much higher than that of the Pseudepigrapha. In brief, they are valuable, but not canonical.

1.     They provide the earliest documentation of some of the canonical books of the New Testament.

2.     They reveal beliefs within the subapostolic church.

3.     They form a bridge between the apostolic writings of the New Testament and the patristic literature of the third and fourth centuries, thus providing some clues to that transition.

4.     They possess hints as to the rise of later false teachings and heresies (e.g., allegorical interpretation in Pseudo-Barnabas, or baptismal regeneration in the Shepherd).

5.     They contain much of historical value about the practices and policies of the early church.^[29]

---

[1] Barton, John (1997). How the Bible Came to Be. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

[2] Ibid.

^[3]Easton, M. (1996, c1897). Easton's Bible dictionary. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

^[4]Bruce, F. F. (1988). The canon of scripture. Includes index. (16). Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity Press.

^[5] Ibid.

^[6]Bruce, F. F. (1988). The canon of scripture. Includes index. (258). Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity Press.

^[7]Ibid.

^[8]Ibid.

^[9]Ibid.

^[10]Bruce, F. F. (1988). The canon of scripture. Includes index. (268). Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity Press.

^[11]Ibid.

^[12]Geisler, N. L., & Nix, W. E. (1996, c1986). A general introduction to the Bible. Includes indexes. Includes a short-title checklist of English translations of the Bible (chronologically arranged). (Rev. and expanded.) (276). Chicago: Moody Press.

^[13] Ibid.

^[14] Ibid.

^[15]Elwell, W. A., & Comfort, P. W. (2001). Tyndale Bible dictionary. Tyndale reference library (536). Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers.

^[16] Ibid.

^[17] Ibid.

^[18]Geisler, N. L., & Nix, W. E. (1996, c1986). A general introduction to the Bible. Includes indexes. Includes a short-title checklist of English translations of the Bible (chronologically arranged). (Rev. and expanded.) (282). Chicago: Moody Press.

^[19] Ibid.

^[20] Ibid.

^[21]Geisler, N. L., & Nix, W. E. (1996, c1986). A general introduction to the Bible. Includes indexes. Includes a short-title checklist of English translations of the Bible (chronologically arranged). (Rev. and expanded.) (284). Chicago: Moody Press.

^[22] Ibid.

^[23] Ibid.

^[24]Geisler, N. L., & Nix, W. E. (1996, c1986). A general introduction to the Bible. Includes indexes. Includes a short-title checklist of English translations of the Bible (chronologically arranged). (Rev. and expanded.) (288). Chicago: Moody Press.

^[25]Geisler, N. L., & Nix, W. E. (1996, c1986). A general introduction to the Bible. Includes indexes. Includes a short-title checklist of English translations of the Bible (chronologically arranged). (Rev. and expanded.) (291). Chicago: Moody Press.

^[26] Geisler, N. L., & Nix, W. E. (1996, c1986). A general introduction to the Bible. Includes indexes. Includes a short-title checklist of English translations of the Bible (chronologically arranged). (Rev. and expanded.) (293). Chicago: Moody Press.

^[27] Ibid.

^[28] Ibid.

^[29]Geisler, N. L., & Nix, W. E. (1996, c1986). A general introduction to the Bible. Includes indexes. Includes a short-title checklist of English translations of the Bible (chronologically arranged). (Rev. and expanded.) (316). Chicago: Moody Press.