Who Chose What to Include in the Bible? - Part
1
Recently, some friends and I were discussing the Protestant claim
of relying on the Bible alone as the source of authority for our
faith and how that differs from the Roman Catholic view. For those
unfamiliar with the issue, the Roman Catholic position holds that
Scripture and sacred tradition are dual sources of authority. It is
this sacred tradition that gives the Pope his status and influences
their beliefs on many issues.(1)
One friend brought up a claim made by a Catholic on an Internet
discussion board. He said that Protestants depend on tradition as
well, at least in some sense, since they depend on the traditional
selection of books that make up the Bible. Someone had to choose
which books would be included, so doesn't this mean we're holding to
tradition on at least one point? The answer is no and it is an
important reasons why - especially since others will try to say our
choices for which books were included in the Bible was somehow
arbitrary. I've reproduced the letter below and provided my answer
to help clarify our understanding of the origin of our Bible.
The Question of Scripture Alone
< --- Original Message --- >
There is no such thing as a sola scripturist.
For it is impossible to demonstrate that Scripture is Scripture by
only using Scripture!
How do we know that the Table of Contents at
the beginning of our Bibles is "accurate" (that is, that
all the books contained within are divinely inspired)?
We have to rely upon the people who put the
list together -- which means we have to rely upon church tradition
being divinely inspired in the development of the canon.
The question for the Protestant CANNOT be:
"Should I only accept the Scripture as divinely inspired?"
but rather: "To what degree should I accept church tradition
(along with Scripture) as divinely inspired?"
< --- End --- >
I think we need to be careful in our assessment of how we got our
Bible. So much hinges on a proper grasp of why we view certain
documents as inspired, since the Bible's authority hinges directly
on whether or not the scriptures do indeed have their origin in God.
The first thing one must remember when discussing the inclusion
of documents as scripture: no church or council ever appointed
certain works as inspired and others as not inspired. This is so
important, I want to repeat it. No church or council ever appointed
certain works as inspired and others as not inspired. All the early
church, beginning with the apostles, maintained that one does not
declare a writing to be the word of God, but one recognizes that the
word of God has been given and treats it appropriately. It's similar
to the laws of nature. For example, one does not decide that gravity
is a law of nature. It's not as though someone declared that the
earth should exert a forced pulling us downward and that somehow
made gravity come true. They simply observe its effects and state
that the law exists.
Let's look at a few points that show how we can observe the
inspirational nature of Scripture:
Identifying Scriptural Authority
The claim was "There is no such thing as a sola scripturist.
For it is impossible to demonstrate that Scripture is scripture by
only using Scripture!"
This claim isn't true. Remember, the Bible isn't a single
writing, but 66 separate documents written by different authors over
1500 years. Therefore it is not circular to argue that when the New
Testament authors refer to the Old Testament as Scripture it is
supportable.
The two main identifying characteristics of scripture are 1) they
derive from authoritative sources (God's prophet, apostolic
authority, etc.) and 2) they hold predictive prophecy (ref Deut.
18:22).
Divine Authority in the Old Testament
Both in the Old Testament and the New Testament, claims of divine
inspiration are made directly. The Old Testament prophets say over
and over again "Thus saith the Lord" claiming to speak
God's message to the people. They supported this claim with various
prophetic predictions. This is why Peter writes "But know this
first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own
interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human
will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God."
Jesus also directly authenticates the Old Testament in its
entirety. In Luke 24:44 Jesus says, "These are the words which
I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be
fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets
and the Psalms concerning Me." Thus Jesus is saying that the
Old Testament is the prophetic Word of God. He also references
"The blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah"
encapsulating the first and last martyr of the Hebrew Scriptures.
Ultimately, we can form the argument this way:
- Jesus claimed to have divine authority to speak on behalf of
God
- Jesus said that his resurrection from the dead would
authenticate his authority
- We have good historic evidence that Jesus rose from the dead
- Therefore, Jesus' statements on the inspiration of Scripture
have authority
The writer to Hebrews put it this way: "God, who at various
times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the
prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He
has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the
worlds" (Heb1:1). God's word is His Son, so His word is
authoritative in authenticating other areas of Scripture.
We've gone rather quickly through the main points in discussing
the initial claim of Scriptural authority. Next month, we'll look at
two key elements that the early church used in identifying which
documents should be included in the New Testament. However, if you'd
like a more detailed study of the concept of Biblical inspiration,
get a copy of our audio teaching "How
We Can Know the Bible is REALLY from God".
Until next
month, God bless.
|
