by drew sagan 75 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Scripture is but words on a page, a medium of communication. How is that supposed to be fallible, infallible, or anything in between?
Is the New York Times infallible? Even when their financial correspondant makes a wrong prediction on the markets?
Frankly it's got less to do with the book[s] and more to do with the writers. Since there were a few of those, surely such broad-brushstrokes are generalisations? After all, not every writer was a prophet...
In my opinion most of the Bible is inspired and infallible but not exactly all of it. Let's not also forget that we are many copies removed from the originals, and that we have translation errors as well as intentional interpolations in some parts to promote a certain viewpoint.
a wise man once wrote, books are mirrors of the soul.... no monkey reading a bible will find a monkey staring back.
words are not containers of meaning....but instead trigger experiences in the reader[s]. if your experiences vary too much from the author the story you read will be very different from what the author intended.
the notion that some group like the WTS has the magic glasses to know what the author intended is what cultish groups the world over offer.
the Catholic Church stated this long ago... CT Russell made similar noises when he wrote the studies in the scriptures.
Drew,
You made some outstanding points which I totally agree with. The early church did not have written NT scriptures like we do today.They were living the NT - not writing it down for us in a book like we have today. The actual writing of what we know as the NT came later, not as the events were taking place.
The early church had the OT scrolls but there was no NT bible. When the bible says all scripture is inspired - it was talking about the OT which contained words that were attributed to God directly, and prophecies for the future. The NT believers were told that those things (things that took place in the OT) were written down for them to teach, reprove and set things straight. With the things written in the OT, they could verify that Jesus was the Christ that was testified about long ago by the prophets, which is what the whole message was about.
The writers of the letters that today we call the NT had Holy Spirit but unlike the OT writers who claimed divine inspiration of all they wrote - (meaning every word) the NT writers do not make such a claim. They were eyewitnesses of Christ and wrote what they observed and witnessed so that people of later generations would believe. (that means us) But did not claim God told them exactly what to write down. The exception is the Apostle John who said that he was transported to heaven and given a vision explaining future events by the resurrected Christ. And he was told to write it down. He was therefore under divine inspiration at that time. Paul also expressed being taken to heaven and seeing a vision of the future paradise, he was given the interpretation of the vision too, so at that time you can say he was under divine inspiration.
But not all the NT letters made that claim. All these writers though they had Holy Spirit which meant they would not write anything contrary to the OT writers, simply wrote their witness of Christ and the happenings of the early church from their own personal perspecitves. That is why there is some slight variations in the texts and they wrote about the same events but from different angles. I personally feel these things are not discrepancies but add to the richness of the bible. They also wrote about what the future will hold for us by writing down what Christ had spoken to them. And they wrote about some simple guidelines the Christian church should follow if they are "in Christ" When Christ poured out Holy Spirit upon the church - the spirit would help them to recall all Jesus said so that they were able to make a fairly accurate record of it. But, not every word in the NT was dictated from God to the writers, the WT using the boss and secretary illustration is not correct. At least not correct in applying it to the NT.
And the importance for us is not to be able to interpret every line they wrote but to get an understanding of the full picture of the things they wrote about which is that Christ is with his church (by Holy Spirit) and will be until he comes again to establish his throne upon the earth. Until then we should encourage one another, love one another and upbuild the church for its future work.
You can read much into the bible and people have disagreed on what passages mean for centuries. This was the same in Paul's day as you brought out, he said they only had a "hazy mirror" of understanding. This is true for today too. We will not have the full understanding of everything written about God and Christ unitl Jesus comes again. Or, like the bible says "until that which is complete arrives". - Paul was referring to the second coming of Christ, not the arrival of the complete bible. This view of the WT is incorrect. because if it were true, why do we still have diagreements about scripture today if we have the complet bible? And we should not think we are supposed to at this time understand every word written.
Jesus told the Pharisees that they searched the scriptures (OT scriptures) daily because they thought that these words would save them. but, he said "you refuse to come to me to be saved". We need to go to Jesus and believe in him, put our full trust in him and he will empower us with his spirit and teach us what he wants us to learn. But we do not have to be able to interpret every letter of the bible. The main teacher for us is Holy Spirit not bible letters.
Faith, love, mercy - these things are more important than scripture knowlege.
So as far as the bible in its entirety being infallible - The things God spoke to Abraham, Noah, Moses, all the prophets, etc. did come true so here his word was infallible. But all the other information is open to interpretation and does not claim it is inspired or infallible therfore how can we try to make that call that it is or not infallible. This standard does not apply for the NT we have today.
I hope I made a little sense here? Lilly
Great topic, Drew.
With that said, where does the Bible teach that each and every verse is indeed a divine revelation. Paul recorded things he refered to as his own opinion, so that means that Pauls opinion was recorded as a divine revelation from God?
No where does the Bible teach that each and every verse is a divine revelation but I think it is a given that while each verse may not be directly from God it is at least allowed by him. Jesus himself said divorce was allowed in the Law because Moses knew the hardheartedness of man and allowed divorce. God did not institute that from the beginning but he allowed Moses do what was needed. God allowed Moses to write what was good for his day but only the Ten Commandments were written in stone, in effect to be kept always. (It's interesting that in the Most Holy of the Temple the Ten Commandments were kept inside the Ark but the Law outside of it. Perhaps indicating it's temporary nature.) Imo, Jesus did the same with Paul he allowed Paul to set the standards for the congregations of his day but not necessarily "law" that would stand forever. The Jews found it easier to lean on law rather than on God just as many Christians today want to lean on the written word rather than on God. It gives them comfort I suppose, this crutch of infallibility.
I say let them have their crutch as long as they don't try to beat me or my children with it. If they do then all bets are off and I will cause their crutch to crumble because the Bible is not meant to be taken as something infallible but rather something beautiful! Not as a club to beat others with but as a path through the woods at the end of which is God.
Thanks for this topic, very interesting posts.
IW
The Protestant Reformation, with its sola scriptura principle, severed the "Bible" from church institution (especially magisterium) and tradition, playing the "authority of scripture" against the other, previously unseparable, sources of religious authority.
This of course opened many logical problems: (1) the very canon and text of the "Bible" was received... from church tradition; choosing the Jewish OT rabbinical canon and masoretic text over the Latin Vulgate (or the Greek Septuagint) boiled down to playing one (non-Christian) tradition against another; (2) ascribing authority to a text immediately raises the issue of its interpretation; an unclear text has no practical authority. Hence the Reformers theoretically assumed that the Bible wass clear to any reader's conscience, but practically they knew it was not the case: practically, the religious magisterium is substituted with humanist (in the 15th-16th century sense) scholarship; for most mainstream confessions, the results of scholarship are balanced and controlled by the (logically unwarranted) acceptation of the ecumenical councils, reintroducing a measure of religious tradition against secular scholarship.
The dogma of infallibility, or rather, inerrancy of Scripture (infallibility being mostly a Catholic term) is to be assessed in this perspective. For most Protestant "Orthodox" (19th-century speech) or "Evangelicals" (20th-century) it is purely theoretical, leaving room for practical uncertainty on two levels: (1) only the "originals" (which are lost) are supposed to be "inerrant," so the certainty of inerrancy is blurred by the uncertainty of textual criticism; (2) no particular interpretation of Scripture can claim to inerrancy, so there is always room for doubt about what any text really means.
Now count the number of Protestant denominations which all believe in "inerrancy of Scripture" yet disagree on almost everything. Boileau already wrote: "Every Protestant is a pope with his Bible in hand."
Narkissos wrote: Boileau already wrote: "Every Protestant is a pope with his Bible in hand."
A great post from start to finish Narkissos. So on the nose historically.
When I read most of the posts under this topic I have the strong impression that people are saying something like this.
"I want there to be a God. I want God to be trying to guide me. I want the Bible to be God talking to me and guiding me.
I've experienced constant refutations to the above views. I don't care! I'm going to cling to the vestiges of these hopes even if it becomes insubstantial mush and mostly superstition."
Now, I don't really expect any of you would say that out loud. No.
Once you relax your death grip on the Bible the fear goes away.
The bible is not a life preserver. If you let go of it you don't sink into a vast ocean of oblivion to be nibbled by sharks. Hardly!
When you let go of the bible you are FREE TO SWIM TO SHORE.
Dear Terry----Maybe you have forgotten the illustration of the BIBLE being held tightly in one hand,each finger representing one of the five meetings that our loving creator has provided. If we miss one meeting we are beginning to loose our grip on the WORD of GOD. Well, with out that tight grip on his WORD, we are DEAD! ;-0
It sure explains why some hold on so tight!
Peg
Now this post is moving in the right direction! Great stuff guys.
"Every Protestant is a pope with his Bible in hand."
I really like that quote, thanks for sharing it. Terry made a great point that can really add to this discussion, I'm glad he shared it.
This takes us to what faith really is. Terry mentioned that people hold on to the Bible for hope, proof of God. This is exactly what I said in my previous post. I really like this scripture:
1 Corinthians 1:22-28 (Amplified Bible)
22For while Jews [demandingly] ask for signs and miracles and Greeks pursue philosophy and wisdom,23We preach Christ (the Messiah) crucified, [preaching which] to the Jews is a scandal and an offensive stumbling block [that springs a snare or trap], and to the Gentiles it is absurd and utterly unphilosophical nonsense.24But to those who are called, whether Jew or Greek (Gentile), Christ [is] the Power of God and the Wisdom of God.25[This is] because the foolish thing [that has its source in] God is wiser than men, and the weak thing [that springs] from God is stronger than men.
I find this amazing because Paul plainly says the message appears as something foolish absurd to most people. How logical is it to believe in a message so simple and basic, but can't be proven with signs or philosophy? Really, how hard is it to accept the Christian message? Very simple. Just look what Jesus said to the man in John 5 that I quoted above.
The message is simple, easy to follow. It is utter foolishness to those who want a sign or proof, and I think that many Christians themselves fall into this catagory. They want such proof, and thus hang onto the Bible and wish it to be something that it is not. Am I a fool simply to believe this message, many will say that I am. To me it's a message that I've accepted. Basic, simple, to the point and foolish to many, but powerful to me.
Very interesting post. I consider myself an active, practicing Christian (at least I try)... yet, I've come to similar conclusions about The Bible. Yes, it is the word of God, but to a point. He has given us something PHYSICAL in trying to understand Him and by following the teachings of Jesus I believe our lives are better for it. For me, bottom line......There are many 'treasures' to be found in the Bible, but there are also just 'words' and opinions.
