Why do all christian theological arguments turn on biblical proof-texts?

[Albion]

Hello, I don't believe the writings attributed to Shaul are the writings of the same man, nor do i hold that most of them are reliable scripturally. But not only Paul(Shaul) but 'John' too. The schism that John (the book) and 'John 1,2+3' have caused in the faith, is intolerable.

IS THERE a schism caused by controversy over whether the Gospel of John should be in the Bible??

 

[Bongoon]

IS THERE a schism caused by controversy over whether the Gospel of John should be in the Bible??

They are not holy writings, well not most of them. They break the Great commandment beginning: Sh'ma Israel (Hear o Israel)

 

[lesliedellow]

If the Bible is so important to the faith, why didn't Jesus write anything down? If it's because he was from an oral tradition society, why do we give such credibility to the written accounts and letters that appear to have been written much later? I know this is all post-modern, emergent crap to some, but to me and many my age, it is a nagging question.

Will Christianity always use the Bible as the final arbiter for apologetics and theology? If not, what will take its place? Can principles like historical criticism, truth, love, community, grace, or forgiveness ever overcome Sola Scriptura?

Because if theology is not constrained by Biblical revelation, you can pull whatever nonsense you like out of your head, and call the result Christianity.

Theology conducted without reference to the Bible is like science conducted without the annoyance of having to take physical reality into account. Fine if you are more concerned with doing your own thing than with discovering the truth.

 

[lesliedellow]

IS THERE a schism caused by controversy over whether the Gospel of John should be in the Bible??

Only in the imagination of somebody who wants to write off the Bible.

Who is it that wants to eject John from the canon? Well, not Catholics, not Orthodox, not Anglicans, not Methodists, not Baptists not Salvationists, not Quakers, not Presbyterians.....

Only some way out liberal, who is manufacturing a controversy which doesn't exist.

 

[Prufrock]

Hello. I don't think one has to hold to any particular statement of inerrancy to consider the NT to be the best source we have regarding the beginnings of Christianity.

I think a historical investigation will lead us to the same conclusion. For example, why were these particular books chosen for inclusion in the NT when other well-regarded books like the Shepherd of Hermas were not? The primary reason was that the early church leaders reserved their highest respect for works which could be traced to witnesses of Christ. That meant an apostle (Matthew, Peter, John, etc.) or an apostle's companion (Mark, Luke, etc.).

Regarding the assembling of the NT, a book I can personally recommend is Reinventing Jesus. Daniel B. Wallace is one of the authors, so you know it will be well-researched.

Thank you for your comments.

Regarding the conclusions made from historical investigation, don't we see many early christian texts appealing to apostolic authority, such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Mary, etc., which were later deemed heretical? Granted we only have bits and pieces of these, but is this not evidence that the fact that a book's title and content reflected apostolic authority insufficient to prove that the book is the Word of God?

I think the early fathers chose the best books they could to satisfy their agenda. If their agenda was to promote a certain theology or Christology, they would promote, read from and copy certain books that they received. For all we know, so accounts were written to make an argument or refute a heresy. The dating of all the canonical books is not based on the autographs, but on philological and hermeneutic approaches (e.g., the letters of Paul must predate the destruction of the Temple in 69 AD because they do not reference the destruction of the Temple).

Even these canonical books are second-hand accounts to me. I suppose a corollary question is why did only the apostles possess magic powers (the ability to perform miracles), and why are there few (if any, as I am not aware of any) corroborating accounts of the Apostles in contemporary histories (e.g., Josephus refers to the stoning of Peter after the rebellion caused by Saulus, but does not account for the stoning of Stephen commissioned/approved of by Saul). I know of no non-christian early sources who cite to the miracles of the Apostles.

Finally, you say I should read Daniel Wallace, but is he not coming from the presupposition that the canon is the inspired word of god?

 

[Prufrock]

are any of you willing to set aside your bible-bias long enough to accept the following challenge. alternate reading genesis and the Apocryphon of John while asking yourself, which one sounds more like Jesus? We have clear historical evidence that Jesus had the authority to select and train the disciples before sending them "another Comforter to finish preparing them to write scripture. We have no credible evidence to presume that anyone else was qualified to write scripture. Nor do we have any credible evidence that the people who selected the books of the bible had the authority to do so. How does it make more sense to put trust for finding the true faith in anyone else but Jesus, His Disciples and what they wrote.

How do we even know that his disciples wrote anything? Many scholars are beginning the hold the position that the gospel accounts were first recorded after, and presumably therefore based in part upon the teachings of Paul. Before anyone jumps on this, I'm not speculating that there wasn't an earlier oral tradition regarding Jesus as the Christ or Messiah.

 

[TasteForTruth]

Why do all christian theological arguments turn on biblical proof-texts?

To what else would you expect a Christian appeal to defend theological arguments? Just curious.

If the Bible is so important to the faith, why didn't Jesus write anything down?

Absence of writings from Jesus does not preclude the possibility that he wrote something down. Just saying...

If it's because he was from an oral tradition society, why do we give such credibility to the written accounts and letters that appear to have been written much later?

To combat Satan's temptations, Jesus quoted "[what was] written." He always honored the "scriptures" and nothing he preached was incompatible with the "written word." The oral traditions of the Jews, on the other hand, while perhaps viewed by some as equally binding as the law, were not given such honor by Jesus. In fact, he was seen condemning certain Jews for exalting their tradition above the intent of the law (as opposed to, although not to the exclusion of, the written law alone).

I know this is all post-modern, emergent crap to some, but to me and many my age, it is a nagging question.

Will Christianity always use the Bible as the final arbiter for apologetics and theology?

Probably. Traditional Christianity, from my point of view, has no other source from which to draw, unless you're talking about one of the sects that claims that truth is established on additional bases, such as on tradition, the Magisterium, etc.

If not, what will take its place? Can principles like historical criticism, truth, love, community, grace, or forgiveness ever overcome Sola Scriptura?

To me, truth is "independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself" (D&C 93:30), which frees one who so believes from the shackles of popular or traditional sources of truth. So the answer to your question depends on the person responding to it.

 

[Prufrock]

Because if theology is not constrained by Biblical revelation, you can pull whatever nonsense you like out of your head, and call the result Christianity.

Theology conducted without reference to the Bible is like science conducted without the annoyance of having to take physical reality into account. Fine if you are more concerned with doing your own thing than with discovering the truth.

To me, this is a non sequitur of sorts. First the analogy to science is (a) basically an attempted appeal to authority, assuming I (and others) trust Science to be the guide to accessing Truth, and (b) imprecise and perhaps inaccurate, as the scientific method of ascertaining truths cannot be separated from observation of physical reality (step one of the scientific method), while theology can be separated from biblical revelation, otherwise there would be no religion outside of and apart from Christianity.

I would agree that having an objective text allows the church to maintain neat borders between what is orthodox and what is heresy, and this has been the case for centuries. But would this argument make sense in the year 50 AD or 100 AD, or even 300 AD? Was the early church's theology based on biblical revelation? If not, were they not Christian?

While it is true that theology is conducted with reference to the bible (or other holy books for that matter), it is also true that the bible (and other holy books) were created by theologians, both amateur and professional) attempting to propagate certain dogmas within the church and attempting to root out detractors. It all seems very basely political, and I don't much trust the political process to get to the truth of a matter. It trust it more to obfuscate truth for selfish reasons.

I suppose the simple response, and the one I would expect, is that the Christian God guided the oral tradition, and chose those who would write the books that eventually became the canon. But that is assuming that God is the Christian God.

To me it is just as likely that Deist God had no oversight in the process. Assuming God had control over the situation and intervened in history would not rule out that God ordained the Inquisition or the Crusades or all of the Wars of Religion in Europe over the centuries.

It would also be just as likely to take a Jewish tack that Jesus was a fraud and that the Jewish God guided Judaism to avoid the heresy.

Finally, even if the Christian God guided any/all of these historical events, why would it be illogical to assume that He is now guiding Christianity, even you in particular, to a reinterpretation and adjustment of long-held views of Biblical hermeneutics or views of Christ in general. The argument, which at first presents as logical, would open up a whole host of other possible conclusions regarding God's will.

I once cherished the inerrant Scriptures, and as Charles Schultz once said, “In all this world, there is nothing more upsetting than the clobbering of a cherished belief.” I'm not saying I am clobbering anything, and you can substitute in whatever verb you want.

 

[Prufrock]

To what else would you expect a Christian appeal to defend theological arguments? Just curious.

Absence of writings from Jesus does not preclude the possibility that he wrote something down. Just saying...
To combat Satan's temptations, Jesus quoted "[what was] written." He always honored the "scriptures" and nothing he preached was incompatible with the "written word." The oral traditions of the Jews, on the other hand, while perhaps viewed by some as equally binding as the law, were not given such honor by Jesus. In fact, he was seen condemning certain Jews for exalting their tradition above the intent of the law (as opposed to just the written law).
Probably. Traditional Christianity, from my point of view, has no other source from which to draw, unless you're talking about one of the sects that claims that truth is established on additional bases, such as on tradition, the Magisterium, etc.
To me, truth is "independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself" (D&C 93:30), which frees one who so believes from the shackles of popular or traditional sources of truth. So the answer to your question depends on the person responding to it.

I find it absolutely fascinating that Mormons, who have added to the canon as late as less than 200 years ago, can make any inerrancy argument with a straight face. I'm not so much talking about truth in a philosophical sense any way. Strictly historical in this thread.

 

[TasteForTruth]

I find it absolutely fascinating that Mormons, who have added to the canon as late as less than 200 years ago, can make any inerrancy argument with a straight face. I'm not so much talking about truth in a philosophical sense any way. Strictly historical in this thread.

Then your OP seems meaningless to me, since truth is neither historical nor philosophical. It is simply truth.

 

[lesliedellow]

To me, this is a non sequitur of sorts. First the analogy to science is (a) basically an attempted appeal to authority,

No its not. The point is valid that if you are going to end up with something other than drivel, anything claiming to be an attempt at truth must have a reference point outside of your own head.

assuming I (and others) trust Science to be the guide to accessing Truth,

You are using a computer, aren't you?

and (b) imprecise and perhaps inaccurate, as the scientific method of ascertaining truths cannot be separated from observation of physical reality (step one of the scientific method),

Tell that to the string theorists.

while theology can be separated from biblical revelation, otherwise there would be no religion outside of and apart from Christianity.

christian theology cannot, and that is supposedly what your question was about.

I would agree that having an objective text allows the church to maintain neat borders between what is orthodox and what is heresy, and this has been the case for centuries. But would this argument make sense in the year 50 AD or 100 AD, or even 300 AD? Was the early church's theology based on biblical revelation? If not, were they not Christian?

a.) For the Church of the first century, the Old Testament was their Bible. And there were eye witnesses around as well as oral tradition.

b.) By about 150, a prototype canon was already in existence. So much so that Marcion could be labelled a heretic for wanting to butcher that canon.

While it is true that theology is conducted with reference to the bible (or other holy books for that matter), it is also true that the bible (and other holy books) were created by theologians, both amateur and professional) attempting to propagate certain dogmas within the church and attempting to root out detractors.

The purpose of the canon is to preserve a historical record of the events upon which the Christian religion is based. Some of the books of the Bible were written with that specific purpose in mind, others do it in a way which is incidental to the intention of the authors.

At this point I decide that I have typed enough.

 

[single eye]

How many theists do you know past or present who refute that GOD created the universe? I know of one. That would be John, the brother of James in The Apocryphon of John. Imagine how outraged all the other theists would be at being told they were worshipping the devil. Doesn't it make sense that they would launch a bible canon obsession to silence their critics? You question how we know the disciples wrote anything. Isn't the more important question why does their theology so clearly contradict everyone else's?

 

[he-man]

..the scientific method of ascertaining truths cannot be separated from observation of physical reality

You are correct, but your vision of reality is marred by blindness because God ordained the Inquisition or the Crusades or all of the Wars of Religion in Europe and the Holocaust! All the Jews who went whoring after other gods and refused the Holy One of Israel commandments. This is true even today when His plan is being put into place to make Zion the Kingdom of God here on Earth!

Zec 14:9 And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.

Psa 47:7 For God is the King of all the earth: sing ye praises with understanding.
Psa 47:2 For the LORD most high is terrible; a great King over all the earth.

3 He shall subdue the people under us, and the nations under our feet.
4 He shall choose our inheritance for us, the excellency of Jacob whom he loved. Selah

Rev 3:10 Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.

11 Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.

12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

Psa 48:8 As we have heard, so have we seen in the city of the LORD of hosts, in the city of our God: God will establish it for ever. Selah.

Psa 48:2 Beautiful for situation, the joy of the whole earth, is mount Zion, on the sides of the north, the city of the great King.

To me it is just as likely that Deist God had no oversight in the process. Assuming God had control over the situation and intervened in history would not rule out that God ordained the Inquisition or the Crusades or all of the Wars of Religion in Europe over the centuries.

No wonder Christ cried with frustration at so many unbelievers that think God had no oversight in the process.
[FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT, serif][/FONT]
[FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT, serif]Mr 15:34 And at the ninth hour Jesus shouted for help with a great voice, Eloi,[/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT, serif]Eloi, λαμα ζαβαφθανι? which is, being interpreted, "My God why are you so far from [/FONT][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT, serif]helping me?"[/FONT]

​

Psa 22:1 To the chief Musician upon Aijeleth Shahar, A Psalm of David. My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me so far from helping me? and from the words of my crying?

Zec 14:9 And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.

 

[joneysd]

when you consider some very sizable cults we have around today decided to add to or alter the bible you can see how the trouble starts.

 

[single eye]

NO, the trouble started when a group of people decided that they had god given authority to decide for everyone which writings were scripture or not. They were wrong.

 

[he-man]

NO, the trouble started when a group of people decided that they had god given authority to decide for everyone which writings were scripture or not. They were wrong.

The trouble started when people forgot what they were instructed:
Deu 6:6 And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart:
Deu 6:7 And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.

Too many ignore the Old Paths and will not walk in them.

Jer_6:16 Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.

 

[single eye]

what you are quoteing does not come from scripture. to be scripture it must be without error. the o.t. is so full of errors you would have to be blind to miss them.

 

[ChetSinger]

Thank you for your comments.

Regarding the conclusions made from historical investigation, don't we see many early christian texts appealing to apostolic authority, such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Mary, etc., which were later deemed heretical? Granted we only have bits and pieces of these, but is this not evidence that the fact that a book's title and content reflected apostolic authority insufficient to prove that the book is the Word of God?

Good point. In general, those books were left out because people didn't believe they were written by the claimed apostolic authors. That's still the consensus opinion today: the NT books were written in the 1st century and the gnostic works in the 2nd.

I think the early fathers chose the best books they could to satisfy their agenda. If their agenda was to promote a certain theology or Christology, they would promote, read from and copy certain books that they received. For all we know, so accounts were written to make an argument or refute a heresy. The dating of all the canonical books is not based on the autographs, but on philological and hermeneutic approaches (e.g., the letters of Paul must predate the destruction of the Temple in 69 AD because they do not reference the destruction of the Temple).

Their agenda was to preserve the words of Jesus. The best sources available to them were the writings of witnesses and their companions. The dating of books is quite complicated and takes into account many factors, such as the first time they were quoted. The book I recommended covers such things.

Even these canonical books are second-hand accounts to me. I suppose a corollary question is why did only the apostles possess magic powers (the ability to perform miracles), and why are there few (if any, as I am not aware of any) corroborating accounts of the Apostles in contemporary histories (e.g., Josephus refers to the stoning of Peter after the rebellion caused by Saulus, but does not account for the stoning of Stephen commissioned/approved of by Saul). I know of no non-christian early sources who cite to the miracles of the Apostles.

I don't either, but I don't know much about 1st-century historians.

Finally, you say I should read Daniel Wallace, but is he not coming from the presupposition that the canon is the inspired word of god?

He's a textual critic, one of the best. If he's also a believer, what's wrong with that? Do you restrict your reading to unbelievers?

 

[he-man]

what you are quoteing does not come from scripture. to be scripture it must be without error. the o.t. is so full of errors you would have to be blind to miss them.

Here on Christian Forums it is considered unethical to make a claim without backing it up with an actual source. What, if any, source do you have for your claim?

The translations of word meanings have been altered but not the content. Do you read Hebrew?

בראשית Genesis is named b re [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]h which is in Hebrew (in the beginning) from at first בְּרִאשׁוֹנָה word.
"J" begins with the creation, later imitated by "P"; then "E" probably began with Abraham. From Chapter 20 and onward, "J" and "E", can be traced as parallel narritives dealing with ancient traditions in much the same way.

"J" can easily be traced because of the use of "Jehovah" as far as chapter 20. After 20 we have three narritives, which makes it more difficult. Two of those, "E" and "P", use God instead of Jehovah. The Comp of the Hexateuch, Page 509; Carpenter-Harford

AS you can see by comparison of Gen 20 and 26, one is about Abraham and the other about Isaac.

Gen 20:2 And Abraham said of Sarah his wife, She is my sister: and Abimelech king of Gerar sent, and took Sarah.

Gen 26:7 And the men of the place asked Isaac of his wife; and he said, She is my sister: for he feared to say, She is my wife; lest, said he, the men of the place should kill me for Rebekah; because she was fair to look upon.

Gen 21:30 And he said, For these seven ewe lambs shalt thou take of my hand, that they may be a witness unto me, that I have digged this well.

31 Wherefore he called that place Beersheba; because there they sware שׁבע had satiety both of them.

32 Thus they made a covenant at Beersheba: then Abimelech rose up, and Phichol the chief captain of his host, and they returned into the land of the Philistines.

Beersheba: i.e., The well of the oath, or the well of the seven. Alluding to the seven ewe lambs. [TSK]

Gen 26:15 For all the wells which his father's servants had digged in the days of Abraham his father, the Philistines had stopped them, and filled them with earth.
19 And Isaac's servants digged in the valley, and found there a well of springing water.

 

[single eye]

i will give you 3.
1. Jesus said "by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified".
2. author Gary Geenberg provided over 100 in 101 Myths of the Bible.
3. The Apostle John corrected more than 4 other o.t. errors in The Apocryphon of John.