GLENSIDE, Pa. (AP) — A theology professor who was suspended for suggesting the Bible was the work of both God and people has agreed to leave the conservative seminary where he taught.
In a joint statement, Westminster Theological Seminary and professor Peter Enns said they "arrived at mutually agreeable terms" that are effective as of Friday. No other details were released.
Westminster trustees voted in March to suspend Enns, a tenured 14-year veteran of the school, because of his 2005 book, "Inspiration and Incarnation."
Enns' book was written to help students grapple with recent scholarship suggesting contradictions in the Bible, especially the Old Testament. In it, Enns urges readers to understand the Bible is both divine and human.
Trustees said it appeared that Enns had defied the school's founding principle, based on the 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith, the core creed of the Presbyterian tradition. It says that Scripture is solely the word of God and proclaims the "infallible truth" and "entire perfection" of the Bible.
Westminster, located near Philadelphia, was founded in 1929 by former Princeton Theological Seminary faculty who believed that school was becoming too liberal.
RSS
Just a thought...
While on the earth, Christ was both human and divine... wouldn't it be possible for the Word of God (meaning God's activity in history and present time not a translation) to be both?
msnchris70, (2)
For details or support for what I say here, please see my blog: http://wbmoore.wordpress.com/2008/08/08/more-on-why-the-apocrypha-should-not-be-considered-canonical/
Sirach 3:33 and Tobit 12:9 teach a salvation by works. But this goes against what the apostles wrote. Jesus takes away the sin of world, through faith, not works (John 1:29; Eph 2:8-9; Hebrews 9:28; 1 John 3:5).
Tobit 6:5-8 teaches doing magic to get rid of demons. But Revelation 21:8 is clear that magicians will suffer the second death, and Matthew 17:18 and Mark 9:25-29 show that Jesus rebuked demons and sometimes prayer is needed. But no mention of magic was needed to get rid of demons.
"The book of Judith (1:5) incorrectly says that Nebuchadnezzar was the king of the Assyrians when he was the king of the Babylonians. Baruch 6:2 says the Jews would serve in Babylon for seven generations where Jer. 25:11 says it was for 70 years."
We have seen that Tobit, 2 Maccabee, Ecclesiasticus have errors. In addition the above errors, the apocryphal books have other errors. This site lists a summary of them: http://www.biblequery.org/apoc.htm. This site effectively presents some of the errors: http://www.apuritansmind.com/Apologetics/ApocryphaArticle4.htm.
Neither Jesus nor the apostles ever quoted from the Apocrypha. The Jews recognized the Old Testament canon and they did not include the apocrypha in it. This is significant because of what Paul says.
Romans 3:1-2
1 What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? 2 Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God.
With so many errors in them, the apocrypha books can not be considered canonical
msnchris70,
Somehow my original post was deleted, so I will post again.
Again, my full response is too long to post here. If you are interested in the details or support for what I say here, please see my blog: http://wbmoore.wordpress.com/2008/08/08/more-on-why-the-apocrypha-should-not-be-considered-canonical/
Some object to the idea that using the Hebrew text for the Old Testament is trusting Jews, who persecuted and killed Christ. However, it is not men we must trust, but God. It was both Romans and Jews who killed and crucified Jesus. Jesus died for my sins as well as theirs, so we all are responsible for His death (Romans 5:8; Romans 6:10; 1 Peter 3:18).
While it might be nice to say that Christians should not trust what the Jews acclaimed as scripture, since they rejected Christ, Paul said that the Jews were "entrusted with the very words of God" (Romans 3:1-2). So it behooves us to pay attention to what the Jews had considered canonical.
The three oldest complete copies we have of the Greek OT each have different additional books, which shows there was no agreement even among the people who gathered to Greek text what books should be included.
In fact, "even Cardinal Cajetan, who opposed Luther at Augsburg in 1518, published a Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament (1532) in which he did not include the Apocrypha".
It had been thought that there was a decree of Damasus that listed the canonical books, but in fact, this was proven to be a forgery, written between 519 and 553.
2 Macc. 12:40-46 has been used to support the doctrine of purgatory and giving prayers for the dead. However, the people for which the offering was supposedly made were obviously idol worshippers. Scripture is quite clear how God feels about idol worship and what happens to idol worshippers. Dt 27:15 reads, "Cursed is the man who carves an image or casts an idol - a thing detestable to the LORD..."
Even those who speak up for idol worshippers are blind, ignorant, and shameful.
Isaiah 44:9 All who make idols are nothing, and the things they treasure are worthless. Those who would speak up for them are blind; they are ignorant, to their own shame.
Indeed, idol worshippers will not get into heaven, according to 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. so it is highly unlikely someone would give an offering for these people, as at best it would be shameful. Second, the ideas of purgatory and that prayers to God can change the position of the dead go against what Jesus said, where you are in one place or the other and there is no crossing over (Luke 16:19-31). It also goes against the idea that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord (2 Cor 5:6-10).
The early Christians did not receive the Bible from the Roman Catholic Church. They received the Bible from the Holy Spirit who inspired it. Catholics who argue to the contrary are not representing the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. Speaking of the books of both Testaments, the First Vatican Council stated:
These books the church holds to be sacred and canonical NOT BECAUSE SHE subsequently approved them by HER AUTHORITY after they had been composed by unaided human skill, nor simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and WERE AS SUCH committed to the church. – (First Vatican Council - First Vatican Council, session 3, chapter 2).
The canon of the New Testament was not formed by the decision of any Church council. Rather, the Council of Carthage (397 A.D.) listed as canonical (only those books that were generally regarded by the consensus of use as properly a canon). In other words, it didn't CREATE the canon. Rather, it CONFIRMED the identity of the canon which ALREADY EXISTED.
So the Catholic Church did not give us the Bible but they have indeed altered it. In 1548, at the Council of Trent, it added the Apocrypha to the Bible. The apocryphal books contain passages which are used to justify many Catholic doctrines, such as praying for the dead and purgatory.
James,
What you wrote in response is reasonable. Afterall, the select people who wrote the New Testament and Old were inspired by the Holy Spirit who is also God and of the same substance as Christ in the Triune form of God. Christ did not say to write anything down, but he also didn't say they couldn't. The Holy Spirit inspired them to write.
The caveat that I am making is that Jesus Christ was given "All authority in Heaven and on EArth" and He chose to give His authority to specific men and not just anyone. These specific men, Apostles, were chosen to be His foundation of his church. Those men received special power from God to act in His name and with His authority. These Apostles picked other men to serve in their place when they died and these men were the Bishops and this has been passed down the same way as it is shown in the Bible through the laying of hands. This authority is restricted to only people who receive this special gift.
This gift still remains within the Catholic, Orthodox and some Oriental Churches that have preserved this Apostolic succession. The Church had the Authority to decide what books went into the Bible. The Church is the "official" interpreter of scripture so that Christ Church can be of one mind, one faith, one baptism and one same Lord.
Authority has always been the issue. The Bible clearly shows how authority was passed down. Protestantism is a departure from this biblical authority, and therefore no Protestant minister has the "official" authority to bind or loose or interpret scripture for the faithful.
With God's authority the Catholic Church has survived for 2000 years and has grown with its structure. Protestantism with its lack of authority has done nothing but fragment and split even farther.
I pray for all good men and women of faith to return to unity of orthodoxy within the Church that Christ founded that still retains that authority from God.
msnchris
We do not know what God wanted. He may have wanted it to be written. In fact he had moses rite alot of the old testament. He said His word would endure forever, and if He wanted to have it endure forever, he would probably have it written down by the apostles or words would be twisted even as some today are attacking the written word.
Ah, the bible, the written word of God. Unfortunately, many add to it all manner of traditions and teachings that are contrary to its truth. For example, compare what pope Benedict XIV said in the Manual of Sodality Of The Blessed Virgin Mary with the bible:
"Christian youth everywhere, intent on honoring and serving the blessed Mother of God, under her guidance who is the Mother of fair love and of knowledge and holy fear, is taught to strive after the height of Christian perfection and to press forward to the goal of eternal salvation."
Should we serve the blessed Mother of God? No, for Mary has been given no such position or authority. If you are in an organization that advises such, come out quickly! Re-read what pope Benedict said while meditating on these scriptures:
"Serve the Lord with gladness: come before his presence with singing" (Ps 100:2).
"For this God is our God for ever and ever: he will be our guide even unto death" (Ps 48:14).
When the Bible says all scripture is inspired and is good for reproofing, then could you tell me what Scriptures then? There was not a book of contents. The Catholic Church created the index and the book of contents for the Bible for the benefit of mankind. You see Jesus never said to write anything down, but rather to preach the Good news. The Apostles and disciples of Christ chose to write about Jesus under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
After a few hundred years, how can you prove that Paul wrote romans or Ephesians or any of his epistles since anyone who knew him were already dead and gone? How can his authorship be preserved????? Catholic Tradition is how!
In the 4th Century Pope Damasus commanded Athanasius to go out and find out what every believes to be the "Traditionally" used and inspired scriptures. After many years they came up with 27 books of the New Testament and the Pope affirmed it and it was "OFFICIAL".
I would like to have seen you Online or anyone else face that task of canonizing 27 books and letters 400 years after the fact with 30 some other books and letters claiming inspiration too? The Fact is that Catholic Tradition is what created the New Testament is a fact.
I know you hate the fact historically that it is the Catholic Church you owe for canonizing the Bible and having the authority to know which letters were inspired and which were not. The Bible has authority because Christ Church knew his voice and could recognize the voice of the Trinity through the many writings. Catholic Tradition protected these writings.
When I was Protestant, I hated the fact that I loved a Book that was written by, canonized, protected, and recopied into every language known by the Catholic church.
You know what Paul's epistles were originally called? They were called the "Catholic" epistles.
Online,
Your position that the New Testament books were known to be inspired by what they said is similar to the Mormon invention of the "Burning in the bosom" feeling. The Mormons say exactly what you say, but they insert the Book of Mormon. Your position is built on sand.
There were many more Gospels in circulation and many more epistles written than just the 27 that are in the Bible Today. The Catholic Church basically rejected some 30 other Gospels and Letters.
You've heard of the Gospel of Judas right or the Gospel of Thomas right? Who threw these books out of the canon? THe Catholic Church is the answer. How did the Catholic church know they were not inspired? You'll never figure that one out will you?
By the way, my Church is the Catholic Church. The Roman Catholics are only but a rite in the entire Global Church. There are 21 other Rites within the Catholic Church. Roman Catholics have always existed since the Time of Paul and Peter who preached to them. You know, the Book of Romans right? Duh!
You have to have more than just a "Feeling" to make a book or letter canonical.
Fourth, when the apostles wrote the New Testament documents they were inspired by the power of the Holy Spirit. There wasn't any real issue of whether or not they were authentic. Their writings did not need to be deemed worthy of inclusion in the Canon of Scripture by a later group of men in the so-called Roman Catholic Church. To make such a claim is, in effect, to usurp the natural power and authority of God himself.
Fifth, the Scripture says, (Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost) – 2 Peter 1:20-21.
The Bible tells us that the Scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the very nature of the inspired documents is that they carry power and authenticity in themselves. They are (NOT) given the power or the authenticity of ecclesiastical declaration.
The Christian church merely recognizes the Word of God (John 10:27). The authenticity of the New Testament documents rests in the inspiration of God through the apostles. It does not rest in the declaration of the Catholic Church. This is very important; the Christian Church recognizes what God has ordained through his sovereign inspiration to be the word of God. When the Catholic Church claims that it is the source of the sacred Scriptures, it is, in effect, placing itself ABOVE the word of God. Believers in Christ need to remember the following verses-
I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have PREACHED unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have RECEIVED, let him be accursed – Galatians 1:6-9.
The Bible tells us to obey the word of God, to not go beyond the written word, so that we might not make mistakes in what is true. See -
Deuteronomy 4:2 – Ye shall NOT ADD unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you;
Proverbs 30:6 – Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. ADD thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar;
Revelation 22:18-19 - For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall ADD unto these things, God shall ADD unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall TAKE AWAY from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are WRITTEN in this book.
Unfortunately, the problem with an elevated status of Roman Catholic Church tradition is that it results in various justifications of its non-biblical teachings such as prayer to Mary, Purgatory, Indulgences, Penance, and Works Righteousness, etc. Because it has deviated from trusting God's word alone, it has ventured into unscriptural areas. Nevertheless, did the Roman Catholic Church give us the Bible? NO, IT DID NOT.
First of all, the Roman Catholic Church was not really in effect as an organization in the first couple hundred years of the Christian Church. Christianity and Romanism is NOT the same thing. The Christian church was under persecution and official church gatherings were risky business in the Roman Empire. Catholicism as an organization with a central figure located in Rome did not occur for quite some time, in spite of its false claim that they can trace the papacy back to Peter.
Second, the Christian Church recognized what was Scripture. It did not establish it. This is a very important point. The Christian Church recognizes what God has inspired and pronounces that recognition. In other words, he discovers what is already authentic. Jesus said (my sheep hear my voice and they follow me...) (John 10:27). The church hears the voice of Christ; that is, it recognizes what is inspired and it follows the word. It does not add to it as the Roman Catholic Church has done. Therefore, it is not following the voice of Christ.
Third, the Roman Catholic Church did not give us the Old Testament which is the Scripture that Christ and the apostles appealed to. If the Roman Catholic Church wants to state that it gave us the Bible, and how can they claim to have given us the Old Testament which is part of the Bible? It didn't, so it cannot make that claim. The fact is that the followers of God, the true followers of God, recognize what is and is not inspired. The Jews knew what was inspired of God and they recognized what God had inspired. That is what those who are of God do.
Were there a few dissenters that the Septuagint was not Canonical. Yes. Were the majority always in favor of the Septuagint. Yes. Even those who were against the canonicity accepted the authority of the Catholic Church over their own interpretation.
There are always dissenters in every situation. But God guides His Church infallibly and has given this Church His authority on Earth.
Jerome
"What sin have I committed if I follow the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating [in my preface to the book of Daniel] the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susannah [Dan. 13], the Song of the Three Children [Dan. 3:29–68, RSV-CE], and the story of Bel and the Dragon [Dan. 14], which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they are wont to make against us. If I did not reply to their views in my preface, in the interest of brevity, lest it seem that I was composing not a preface, but a book, I believe I added promptly the remark, for I said, ‘This is not the time to discuss such matters’" (Against Rufinius 11:33 [A.D. 401]).
So, did the Catholic Church add to the Bible or did the Protestants take away. Historical record sides with the Catholic Church. Also, all Bibles previous to Luther always had these 7 books of the Old Testament from the Septuagint.
Historical record always undermines Protestant theory.
Cyprian of Carthage
"In Genesis [it says], ‘And God tested Abraham and said to him, "Take your only son whom you love, Isaac, and go to the high land and offer him there as a burnt offering . . ."’ [Gen. 22:1–2]. . . . Of this same thing in the Wisdom of Solomon [it says], ‘Although in the sight of men they suffered torments, their hope is full of immortality . . .’ [Wis. 3:4]. Of this same thing in the Maccabees [it says], ‘Was not Abraham found faithful when tested, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness’ [1 Macc. 2:52; see Jas. 2:21–23]" (Treatises 7:3:15 [A.D. 248]).
"So Daniel, too, when he was required to worship the idol Bel, which the people and the king then worshipped, in asserting the honor of his God, broke forth with full faith and freedom, saying, ‘I worship nothing but the Lord my God, who created the heaven and the earth’ [Dan. 14:5]" (Letters 55:5 [A.D. 253]; Daniel 14 is not in the Protestant Bible).
The Didache
"You shall not waver with regard to your decisions [Sir. 1:28]. Do not be someone who stretches out his hands to receive but withdraws them when it comes to giving [Sir. 4:31]" (Didache 4:5 [A.D. 70]).
Council of Rome
"Now indeed we must treat of the divine scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book, Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books" (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382]).
Council of Hippo
"[It has been decided] that besides the canonical scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical scriptures are
as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . ." (Canon 36 [A.D. 393]).
Council of Carthage III
"[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine scriptures. But the canonical scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees . . ." (Canon 47 [A.D. 397]).
So, 1100 years before Luther threw out seven books it is shown that the early church always believed these to be canonical and inspired.
To add proof that the Catholic Church never added to the Bible and Luther and Protestants took them away. Let's look at the Historical record. History is the achilles heal for many Protestants.
Saint Augustine wrote:
"The whole canon of the scriptures, however, in which we say that consideration is to be applied, is contained in these books: the five of Moses . . . and one book of Joshua [Son of] Nave, one of Judges; one little book which is called Ruth . . . then the four of Kingdoms, and the two of Paralipomenon . . . . [T]here are also others too, of a different order . . . such as Job and Tobit and Esther and Judith and the two books of Maccabees, and the two of Esdras . . . . Then there are the prophets, in which there is one book of the Psalms of David, and three of Solomon. . . . But as to those two books, one of which is entitled Wisdom and the other of which is entitled Ecclesiasticus and which are called ‘of Solomon’ because of a certain similarity to his books, it is held most certainly that they were written by Jesus Sirach. They must, however, be accounted among the prophetic books, because of the authority which is deservedly accredited to them" (Christian Instruction 2:8:13 [A.D. 397]).
"We read in the books of the Maccabees [2 Macc. 12:43] that sacrifice was offered for the dead. But even if it were found nowhere in the Old Testament writings, the authority of the Catholic Church which is clear on this point is of no small weight, where in the prayers of the priest poured forth to the Lord God at his altar the commendation of the dead has its place" (The Care to be Had for the Dead 1:3 [A.D. 421]).
Wbmoore,
So, you are saying you put your Trust in the Jews that persecuted our Christ???? Remember, these are the same group of Jews who denied Christ divinity, scourged him, beared false witness against Him. You put your trust in Jews who negate Christ role but you affirm their ability to decide what is canonical?
Yes, Matthew and Hebrews were written in Hebrew. The vast majority did not speak Hebrew in Nazarath, Galilee or the majority of areas Christ preached. It is historical fact that the septuagint was the widespread Old Testament Canon. During Christ life did anyone challenge its canonicity? Many parts of the deutero-canonical books have almost identical passages to the New Testament scriptures. Now, that alone does not make them inspired. Jesus and His apostles used the Septuagint and it was unheard of unless you went to Jerusalem that the Hebrew Canon was used by the Majority of Jews. Remember, the Jews never canonized their OT until the year 100.
I'm glad Luther thought the Deutero-Canonical books were useful. Was Numbers useful???
Only the Church founded by Christ has the authority given by GOD directly that can make a binding decision, after all it is the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, not the one holy Catholic and Pharisee Church.
You put your trust in the Jewish people who condemned Christ and I put my Trust in the Church Christ founded. Christ authority rests with His Church, not with the Jews to determine canonicity. Also, Luther had no authority. Where was the Protestant Ecumenical Council to decide this? Luther made a decision in an unbiblical fashion. No Bishop preciding, no ecumenical council, etc.
The Greek version of the OLD TESTAMENT was used by Christ and His disciples and there was no mention of any issue with it. The Catholic Church affirmed at the Council of Trent that these 7 books had always been used by the Christians of earliest times. You simply cannot find a Bible that doesn't have the deutero-canonical books of the OLD Testament prior to Luther. They were always there, so WHO TOOK OUT BOOKS OF THE BIBLE THEN? EVEN the first King James Versions had these books.
So, if these books were always used prior to Luther then it was Luther who threw them out and the Catholic Church did not add to what has always been in use.
msnchris70,
Thank you for the off handed compliment.
My full reply is much too long to post here. If you are interested in the details and support, I have posted it here:
http://wbmoore.wordpress.com/2008/08/07/why-should-the-apocrypha-books-not-be-included-in-the-bible/
But I will try to answer your post in summary here.
First, Hebrew was spoken in Israel, and Jesus quoted from the Hebrew Bible.
Jesus said, "this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah" (Luke 11:50-51, cp Matthew 23:35), thus referring to the first and last martyrs of the Hebrew Old Testament. The first martyr of the Old Testament, of course, was Abel (Genesis 4:8) and the last martyr was Zachariah (2 Chronicles 24:20-21). Since Chronicles is placed at the end of the Hebrew Bible, Jesus was giving evidence of the books of the Old Testament He considered canon. Jesus also spoke of "the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms" in Luke 24:44. So Jesus gave evidence of the contents of the canon of the Old Testament, and it did not include the apocrypha. Also, Paul said that the Jews were "entrusted with the very words of God" (Romans 3:1-2).
The books of Matthew and Hebrews were written in Hebrew.
The Protocanonical books of the Hebrew Bible have always been considered canonical by both the Jews and Christians. This is not the case for the Apocrypha. The Aramaic translation of the Old Testament (the Targums), did not include them; neither did the Peshitta, the earliest versions of the Syriac translation of the Old Testament. "Only one Jewish translation, the Greek (Septuagint), and those translations later derived from it (the Italia, the Coptic, Ethiopic, and later Syriac) contained the Apocrypha".
Many church fathers (at least Melito, Cyril, Athanasius) held the apocryphal works to not be canon. Others had differing views of which books should be considered canonical.
Also, Luther never got rid of any book of the New Testament.
So I stand by my statement. The Council of Trent added to the Bible when it declared as canon book of which many doubted the canonicity, from the early church onwards.
Msnchris,
Your cmments about the acceptance about the canon is important. However, the statements you made about Martin Luther are highly inaccurate.
John Calvin never influenced Luther. The only Swiss reformer Luther negotiated with was Ulrich Zwingli. By the time Calvin would make his first theological impact with his Institutes, Luther's German Bible was fully translated. Calvin would have some influence of Luther's co-worker, Phillip Melanchthon, but this would happen after Luther's death. For Calvin to have told Luther to take a chill pill over tossing books out of the New Testament is untrue.
I own a copy of the Luther Bible. It contains all 66 books of the Old Testament and New Testament. It is true that Luther had reservations about James (called it "a right strawy epistle"), but determined that James apostolic position merited its inclusion. Luther was upset over all the eschatalogical nonsense promoted by Anabaptist groups, but included Revelations in spite of it. In my copy of der Lutherbibel, the Apocrtpha was included. Luther did not equate these books with the rest of the 66 books, and understood that the Jewish authorities had reason to exclude them from the Torah-Nebiim-Kethubim (the divisions of the Old Testament Scriptures). However, he declared them "useful and good for reading."
I don't know where your facts about Luther came from. But I would find it better to discuss the Great Reformer of Northern Europe more even-handedly rather than to launch into the typical anti-Luther polemic.
Well said MSNChris!
wbmoore,
Most of the time you are a very reasonable person, so I will hold you accountable on a mistake you made.
The Catholic Church did not add to the bible at the council of Trent. Rather, the New Testament which is the Christian Holy Scriptures were decided in the 4th century and affirmed by Pope Damasus. The septuagint or Old Testament was always the Old Testament for Christians and Jews up until the year 100 when hardline conservative Jews rejected anything that was written in Greek and not Hebrew, so the Jews threw out the deutero-canonical books from the OT canon.
Martin Luther is actually the person who threw out the seven deutero-canonical books. He also threw out James, Revelation, 1John, 2John, etc until Calvin and others calmed him down.
The council of Trent simply affirmed what the Old Testament books are and what all of Christendom had used since the time of Christ. Moreover, the Septuagint was used by Jesus himself because he lived in Nazareth. Notice that Jesus never said anything about not using this septuagint. The Hebrew version was not used in Nazareth at all, nor in any other place but Jerusalem. Also, most people did not actually speek Hebrew. They spoke Aramaic and Greek.
To be specific, the Catholic Church only dogmatizes things when they are attacked. The New Testament was attacked in the 3&4th Century, thus the Catholic Church made an official decision of what books are accepted as scripture and what is not. Also, in response to the Reformation where Luther threw out 7 books and wanted to throw out more on his OWN AUTHORITY ALONE, the Council of Trent affirmed the Old Testament books that were ALWAYS USED BY CHRISTIANS AND CHRIST AND THE APOSTLES themselves. We know they read the septuagint since that was the only OT in use where Jesus and the Apostles lived.
Yes, I agree that God inspired the Bible yet He chose to inspire His writings through men and these men had different writing styles. Luke is very different from John and is very different from Mathew and Paul writes very differently from Peter, Jude and John. So, don't minimalize the human component to Scripture.
If these men were just secretaries, they would not have inserted their own personality to it.
hlerwin
Don't mind the "unhappy childhood" or "arrested development rants. You've got a point to make. But I'm a bit puzzled about the comment of "literalists." It leads me to ask the question, "How do you go about interpreting Scripture?" Do you declare everything that makes sense as literal, and what you deem unacceptable worthy of symbolic interpretation? The church father Origin had a multi-leveled system of interpretation, starting at the literal, moving towards an allegorical interpretation. This led to abusive readings of what Scripture states so plainly.
It does make it a matter of importance to understand what makes for proper hermeneutics.
more on who wrote the Bible....
Jesus said His teaching came from the Father:
John 7:16
Jesus answered, "My teaching is not my own. It comes from him who sent me."
Jesus said the Holy Spirit would teach the apostles all truth and remind them what He had taught:
John 14:26
But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
John, the apostle loved by Jesus, claimed accuracy:
Jn 21:24 24 This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.
Peter said all scripture comes from God,
2 Peter 1:20-21
20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
Peter called Paul's writings Scripture:
2 Peter 3:15-16
15 Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
Paul said that all Scripture is God-breathed:
2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness
So, God said it (breathed it) and used the human authors to transcribe the exact message He wanted written.
If I use a secretary to write my memoirs, it is still me writing it, using a human writer to write my message. The same is true for God.
So, God wrote the Bible, by speaking it to the human writers. There are no inaccuracies because God is powerful enough to have the message He wanted written to be written, using the writer, each with his own style, language, intended purpose, and audience.
As for the collection of books that make up the New Testament, it would be more accurate to say the bishops of the church across the world met together in the 4th century and agreed with God as to what books He wanted in the New Testament.
It IS interesting to note the Roman Catholic Church added to the list at the time of the reformation.
The question is, "Did man write the Bible, or did God write the BIble, or did men inspired by God write the Bible."
Let us look at what Scripture says about itself.
Exodus 34:27
Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel."
Isaiah 30:8
Go now, write it on a tablet for them, inscribe it on a scroll, that for the days to come it may be an everlasting witness.
Jeremiah 1:9
Then the LORD reached out his hand and touched my mouth and said to me, "Now, I have put my words in your mouth."
Jeremiah 30:2
This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: Write in a book all the words I have spoken to you.
Ezekiel 43:11
and if they are ashamed of all they have done, make known to them the design of the temple - its arrangement, its exits and entrances - its whole design and all its regulations and laws. Write these down before them so that they may be faithful to its design and follow all its regulations.
Habakkuk 2:2
Then the LORD replied: Write down the revelation and make it plain on tablets so that a herald may run with it.
Revelation 1:19 "Write, therefore, what you have seen, what is now and what will take place later."
Jesus Himself said God said,
Mt 22:31-32
31 But about the resurrection of the dead-have you not read what God said to you, 32 "I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob"? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.
There are no contradictions in the Bible. The Sacred Scriptures were divinely inspired through specific men who wrote them under the protection of the Holy Spirit.
These men who wrote the Old and New wrote infallibly because of the Holy Spirit's protection and divine inspiration.
Wbmoore,
God did not write the bible. Men wrote the Bible through the inspiration of God and through God's protection that all scriptures are inerrant and there are no contradictions. Remember, the bible did not fall out of the sky. The New Testaments especially did not just fall out of the Sky either. It was written by specific men and in the 4th Century the Catholic Church decided what are the official New Testament scriptures of the Church.
All Christians accept the 27 books of the new testament.
There is a difference between truth and a positive message. Someone can deliver a positive message that is full of lies. Just because something is positive does not mean it is right or can be trusted.
GOD is perfect. God is all powerful. God wrote the Bible. If the Bible can not be trusted in any one area, it can not be trusted in all areas.
The idea is, if someone has proven themselves to be a liar, like the little boy who cried wolf, what makes you think you can trust them when they warn you about something true, like the wolf who finally DID come?
believer, I"m learning from one of the best! :)
wb, that question sounds familiar, HA!! :)
chicago24
Please share where you think the Bible suggests homosexuality is a good thing, or even allowed, for someone who claims Christ as savior?
jere333, thanks for responding and I like you find no contradictions either, be blessed as you serve Him, believer
I myself do not believe there are any contradictions, but I stated that for the sake of those who do and tend to focus on details that apparently (to some anyways) are contradictory.
jer333, do you believe there are apparent contradictions in the Bible, if so what are they? Or are you assuming since others seem to think there is there must be?
chicago24, I had a professor in college who said the Bible means what it says and says what it means, but the Bible doesn't always say what it means or mean what it says. I had a Pastor who said there are some issues in the Bible that we must plant our feet in concrete over and other issues that we dare not plant our feet in concrete over. In the case of homosexuality I have people whom I consider friends and even brothers and sisters in Christ who are of the homosexual persuasion, but I have yet to find any biblical support to the sexual practices of that lifestyle and I do find scriptures that strongly appear to condemn the sexual practices of that lifestyle. So as much as I truly care about these people I believe I have no choice but to call the sexual practices of homosexuality what God in His Word calls it, that is sin.
I think it's so ironic that when contradictions and inconsistencies are pointed out in the Bible, so many conservative Christians feel free to explain these using the most amazing interpretations, assumptions and exegetical acrobatics.
Yet, when using scriptures to condemn homosexuality, BAM! they use the scripture "as is" and no explanations or interpretations are considered whatsoever.
We need to keep in mind that the miracles recorded in the gospels were accounts given by eyewitneses, thus we must keep in mind that eyewitnesses may recall certain details according to how they perceived the event.
One may go to the scene of a car accident and interview eyewitnesses that may provide different details to the event, yet as long as they agree with the key elements and the significance of the event(who ran the red light rather than how many doors the car had)it's what is truly important.
The gospel writers also had different audiences in mind, thus the special details they provided in their writings served to convey their message to their particular audience. Some details would make a difference to some audience (whether they were Jews or Gentiles) while other details made no difference.
The Bible may contain some apparent contradictions when it comes to details, but the essence and principles nere contradict themselves.
From Webster's Dictionary, contradict, to assert the opposite of, to declare to be false or incorrect, to be contrary or opposed to; go against. contradiction; a contradicting or being contradicted, a statement in opposition to another; denial, a condition in which things tend to be contrary to each other; inconsistency; discrepancy. Just because writers present things from a different point of view or for a different purpose does not mean they are contradicting each other. Case in point the last words of Christ on the Cross. Although the writers record different words as Christ's last words none of them declares that they are indeed the last words He spoke immediately before He died, they are simply the last words that the writer chose to record. To be contradictory one of the writers would have to declare that immediately after He said these words Christ died or that even though another writer said these are Christ's last words he's wrong and these are Christ's last words He spoke immediately before He died. The more important point is that Christ spoke all the words recorded in the Gospels and there is no contradiction to be found in what each of the writers recorded.
I went to church last night and my friend Joe got saved. I went to church last night and three teens got saved. I went to church last night and 14 people got saved. All three of these people went to the same church last night and this is what they reported. Three different stories and yet not one contradiction. If people are looking for so-called contradictions in the Bible they will find them because chances are they have a hidden agenda in the first place, but if they are true students of the Word they will discover that there are no contradictions but rather information being presented from different points of view as in the example I gave. Now if any of you who claim there are contradictions in the Bible are seriously interested in seeing that there are no contradicitons in the Bible may I suggest your pick up a copy of "Hard Sayings Of The Bible" by Kaiser, Davids, Bruce, Brauch and Geisler's series of When Critics Ask, When Skeptics Ask, and When Cultists Ask. I have personally found these books to be excellent tools in helping myself and others to clarify those passages of scripture that appear to contradict each other.
Even if there were contradictions they would not matter to me. I lean to the different points of view from different perspectives by people who saw what they saw as individuals. No two people record exactly the same thing when they see an event. I learned that in HS journalism class.
All I know is that when I prayed to receive Jesus Christ in my heart He came in. He did something to me that I cannot explain to any one but those who have had the same experience.
The bottom line is Jesus' Gospel works. He is real. He has shown that to me in so many inexplicable but very real ways many times. If the contradiction hunters are looking for an excuse to set the Bible aside, I say go ahead. Set it aside. But quit playing these stupid games & just tell everyone up front you just do not want to believe in Christ & the Bible. Just tell the Lord to leave you alone. He will. You won't like it in the long run, but He won't go where He is not wanted.
Quit looking for excuses & be upfront, you who do not want His love, mercy & forgiveness. As for me, I love Him. He is real. His Word is true & works quite well, thank you very much!
SamFox
tipique wrote:
"REALLY!!! I ALWAYS hear about contradictions, but no one can come up with any."
Maybe tipique got enough responses to satisfy him. My question is why would a few contradictions impair the overall, hopeful message of the Bible? This seems like such a childish attitude. Our earthly parents are not "perfect," and they do not give us "perfect" rules to live by. Nevertheless, they love us and want the best for us. The question of whether a printed book is "perfect" or not seems silly to me. These literalists are suffering from some carry-over from an unhappy childhood - or some form of arrested development, anyway.
OnLine,
In regard to your post of the dual feeding of the multitudes (4000 and 5000), Jesus acknowledged performed both feedings as separate events (Matt. 16: 7-10).
Chicago's posts and your responses, reminded me of one of my readings in my distant past. It was William Arndt's Are There Contradictions in the Bible (Concordia Publishing House, sometime in the 70's). His was the first of many works that defended against seeming contradictions that has crossed my desk. His short work included an introduction that gave a general introduction of what is deemed a contraction, and pointed out the weaknesses of the approach of contradiction hunters who make a curious sport of finding difficulties.
The tendency to say that Jesus healed one, no, make that two blind men, is typical citations. The key is that Jesus healed the blind. Matthew, who was on hand to witness the miracle, counted two blind men (Mt 20:29-34). Mark and Luke noted one (Mk 10:46-52; Lu 18:35-43), which Mark knew by the name of Bartimaeus. This individual could have been an aquaintance to Mark, which caused him to note his healing, without necessarily denying a second blind man. Archaeology served to solve difficulties, such as the leaving or entering Jericho involved with this healing. There were two Jerichos, one older village, the other a palace city founded by Herod the Great, somewhat of a resort town. Matthew noted Jesus' leaving the old town, while Mark and Luke noted Jesus' entrance into the prosperous new town (this leads to Jesus' meeting with Zacchaeus, Luke's personal touch to the events of that day.
I fear that the contradiction hunters qwould engage in their sport to the detriment of the Biblical message, the Gospel of Christ. The bottom line remains this, if all the contradictions were resolved, would the hunters accept the Bible as God's Word, or feel of general disappointment that a rationale for doubt has been eliminated, necessitating the search of something else to promote doubt?
Feeding the multitudes.
Carefully compare the (TWO) miracles:
The Lord had returned from Tyre and Sidon (through the midst of the coasts of Decapolis), and was in the country east of Jordan. He drew near to the Sea of Galilee and went up into a mountain and sat down there, and the people came about Him. You read again of a feeding of a multitude. Compare this miracle with the one so like it, described in Mark 6:31-44.
Carefully note the differences. In the first miracle the people had been with the Lord one day, now three days. The multitude in the first miracle was Israelites, in the second Gentiles. In the first; five thousand were fed, in the second four thousand.
In the first there were five loaves and two fishes. In the second miracle; there were seven loaves and a few fishes. In the first miracle; twelve baskets full of fragments and in the second miracle there were seven baskets. After the first miracle the Lord sent the disciples away in the boat, after the second miracle He crossed with them to Dalmanutha, apparently near Magdala. (Matthew 15:39)
5000 men; 5 loaves; 2 fishes; 12 baskets full
4000 men; 7 loaves; few fishes; 7 baskets full
What were the last words of Jesus before he died?
Were the last words that Jesus spook (Father into thy hands I commit my spirit) (Luke 23:46), or (It is finished) - (John 19:30).
This does not show a contradiction any more than two witnesses to an accident at an intersection will come up with two different scenarios of that accident, depending on where they stood. Neither witness would be incorrect, as they describe the event from a different perspective. Luke was not a witness to the event, and so is dependent on those who were there. John was a witness. What they are both relating, however, is that at the end Jesus gave himself up to death.
It could be said that Luke used the last words that he felt were necessary for his gospel account, which concentrated on the humanity of Christ, while John was quoting the last words of Jesus as the fulfillment of the salvific message, and so quoted the last phrase (it is finished).
John 17:4 records Jesus prayer to the Father in the light of Christ's forthcoming crucifixion, stating that He had completed the work of revelation (John 1:18), and since revelation is a particular stress of the Gospel of John, and the cross is the consummation of that commission (John 3:16), it is natural that this Gospel should centre on the cross.
Jesus said (It is finished; Father into your hands I commit my spirit) or vice versa, it would be quite in order to record either clause of this sentence, his last words. At any rate, no contradiction is involved; purely a distinction of emphasis.
Mountain or Plain?
Reading the surrounding verses will reveal that these are two separate sermons. In Matthew 5:1-2 we read that when Jesus saw the multitudes (...he went UP into a mountain: and when he was set, (HIS DISCIPLES) came unto him: And he opened his mouth, and taught them saying...)
Compared with Luke 6:17 which states that (he [Jesus] came DOWN WITH THEM [the 12 disciples], and stood in the plain, and the company of his disciples, and a great multitude of people out of all Judea and Jerusalem...)
Now, add in Matt. 8:1 (When he was come down from the mountain, great multitudes followed him). So, the order of events is as follows: 1.) Jesus sees the multitude and goes up into the mountain. 2.) His disciples come to Jesus alone in the mountain where Jesus preaches Matt. 5-7, the Sermon on the Mount. 3.) Jesus comes down from the mountain with his disciples (Luke 6:12-13) 4.) Jesus preaches Luke 6, the sermon on the Plain.
Clearly, Jesus preached two messages; notice that the two sermons in Matt and Luke are not the same. They are similar...but not identical.
(But this goes to show that the writers of the Biblical texts (humans) were not concerned with the literal sense of the meanings, but used allegorical stories to convey a message).
Not concerned with the literal sense of the meanings????? Only according to those who subscribe to (higher criticism) as the basis for their interpretations. There are solutions to your apparent contradictions here:
Who was the father of Joseph?
MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.
It is a probability that Joseph is the son-in-law of Heli, and the biological son of Jacob. The wording is different in both verses such as the reference in Matthew specifically states that Jacob begat Joseph, while Luke describes Joseph as being the son of Heli. In other passages of the Bible son-in-laws are referred to as the son of their father-in-law.
Also look at Matthew.1:6, David starts at Solomon whose mother was Urias, but the linage starts at Nathan who also was a son of David in Luke 3:31, two different genealogies.
The feeding of the multitudes... Four times in the gospels, there are five thousand people. Two times, there are four thousand.
The bottom line is that, yes, there are inconsistencies and contradictions in the Bible. But this goes to show that the writers of the Biblical texts (humans) were not concerned with the literal sense of the meanings, but used allegorical stories to convey a message. This was a common practice of every writer in ancient times. And it's the message we should look for, not use snippets of the Bible to prove a point.
You did yourself in a hole when doing so.
A really notable contradiction are Jesus' last words on the cross. It's different in Matthew, Luke and John:
Matt 27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."
Luke 23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."
John 19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."
Here's another contradiction. Did Jesus give his sermon on a mount or on a plain? Matthew and Luke can't agree:
Matt 5:1,2: "And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying...."
Luke 6:17,20: "And he came down with them, and stood in the plain, and the company of his disciples, and a great multitude of people...came to hear him.. And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples and said..."
Topekan: I'll list some contradictions in the Bible.
First of all, who was the father of Joseph? Was it Jacob or Heli?
Matt 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.
The real question is what does Enns mean? Of course there is a human element to the Scriptures. The bible contains errors in the sense that it records errors not makes errors. Enns has not been called a "liberal" before so maybe we should find out exactly what he meant by it and what he actually taught before making conclusions and accusations.
grace and Peace,
Jim
Ummm . . with respect, this is NOT an accurate statement of why the administration of Westminster Seminary disagreed with Prof. Enns' latest book: "who was suspended for suggesting the Bible was the work of both God and people." No Christian denies that men were involved in the writing of the Bible.
REALLY!!! I ALWAYS hear about contradictions, but no one can come up with any.
chicago,
just what contradictions are you referring to? Can you list three or four?
I studied at two universities in obtaining my MDiv (Master of Divinity). At a small conservative university, the Bible was "the word of God." At a large university (University of Toronto) the bible was "a record of human inspiration."
How else would you account for all the contradictions in the Bible?
I doubt that this professor will have any trouble in finding another position.
I must agree with cyberlizard:
"if we really believed the bible to be the word of God (and i mean REALLY), the face of christianity would be hugely different!"
I also believe that it's us, The Church...made up of humans...fallible creatures that we are, who have sold Scripture short in the presence of The World. There is a song: "If we are The Body, why aren't His hands healing...why aren't his feet going...etc, etc. I have begun to take a look at myself in this particular Light. If I believe what I say I believe (God's Holy Word) then in what way are my actions...my speech...conveying that belief? I feel it starts personally and only then can it grow to a corporate change; both are needed.
Another victim of right wing fundamentalist bible thumpers. They love the bible more than the person who wrote it.
cyberlizard
You have said.....
....if we do not acknowledge the human elements of the scriptures we may as well just deify the texts and have done with it!"
This is why it is so important that all Christians really know and understand the Word of God.
And yes, many Christians don't because they are taught that they don't need to. This is wrong.
The only human element, per sey, is the ability to find words in each language which best translate the true meaning of God's Word. But God gave us our different languages and most certainly the Holy Spirit is our guide.
If there are intentional errors made in this process, then like anything else true Christians have to recognize the error and be quick to respond.
good of him to stick to his guns.... if we do not acknowledge the human elements of the scriptures we may as well just deify the texts and have done with it!
if we really believed the bible to be the word of God (and i mean REALLY), the face of christianity would be hugely different!
(A theology professor who was suspended for suggesting the Bible was the work of both God and people has agreed to leave the conservative seminary where he taught).
Good riddance; this was nothing more than an another attempt to discredit the (WORD OF GOD); liberal scholars, textual critics, new agers, and all the rest have to discredit the scriptures in order to elevate a false Christ and a false gospel.
We (Christians) are in a battle for (truth); we need to continue follow Jesus example of always utilizing the (IT IS WRITEN) approach when discussing matters of faith.
Maybe he can have a place with a fellow "I know better"
bible doubter:
"If Jesus were physically among us again, “his focus would not be on morality… it would be on God and the Creator. If you focus on morality, Romans ultimately tells you you won’t get morality. unChristian is not despair of where we’re at, but hope of where we can be.†Chris Seay" No bloodstains wanted here.
Exactly what is the point of 'believing' in the Bible if you don't really believe the Bible? If it's not completely true then what's the point?
It has been my experience that it is man who is the contradiction.
In faith...
2Ti 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."
1Th 2:13 "For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe."
Rom 10:17 "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."
Rev 22:19 "And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."
...we cannot stray from this work from our Creator. Holy is is name.