Does the Bible have a future?

[Mark Metcalfe]

(This is posted in the "Does God have a future?" note which obviously
has given rise to the title of this note.)

It hasn't been very long that the Bible was the unquestioned Word of God,
interpreted to us by church priests, and later made available to the common
person. In our Information Age, we now have probably scores of Bible
versions of which many consider adequate to tell the truth of the gospel.
Few are there who still support the King James Version as the best source
for Scriptural integrity. Historians, scholars, and theologians (in this
Information Age) have combined to change in a few years what often
takes decades or centuries of debate about such things.

Are we in the process of invalidating the Bible as an authority of the
gospel? Of the revelation of God to humanity?

Mark

[Ron Davis]

(
Few are there who still support the King James Version as the best source
for Scriptural integrity.

Mark

Are you saying you believe the KJV is the best source for scriptural integrity?

[Mark Metcalfe]

Are you saying you believe the KJV is the best source for scriptural integrity?

No.

[Mark Metcalfe]

I think this would make a good poll question but I am not sure I
could come up with all the right items:

1. The Bible reveals what we need to know about God.
2. The Bible reveals what we need to know about God, but has a lot of unnecessary things that could be throw out.
3. The Bible has some good things to say but it is not an authority on revealing what we need to know about God.
4. The Bible is not necessary at all to know about God. I can learn about God from other sources.
5. The Bible ....

MM

[Bruce Carriker]

Do you have some particular problem with The Manual's statement on the Bible?

[Stan Hall]

I think there's no question that the Bible has a future. True there are many new translations or versions of the Bible. Most of these seek to render the Word in modern language the more people can understand. By studying several we can still glean the Message. There are some, however, which clearly seek to subvert the Word of God. Of those we must beware. But I think most still are reasonably faithful renditions.

Stan

[Ron Davis]

Which ones clearly seek to subvert the word of God?

[Jeremy D. Scott]

It's been demonstrated well to me recently that there are great hindrances (misunderstandings?) with sola scriptura - "scripture alone." Scripture should play a rather large part in the life of the Christian community - way more than any single individual. But to say that it is the sole authority is impossible and even perhaps counter-biblical.

The role of the Christian community must be recognized not as a lemming-like mob following the black-and-white words found in a stagnant and out-dated book (which we know isn't nearly as "black and white" as we try to make it most of the time). Rather, the Christian community is to carefully and corporately read and interpret scripture with the ever-promised presence of the Holy Spirit.

Let's not forget that the Christian community formed scripture (Someone once said something to the effect of, "Scripture was formed for humanity, not humanity for scripture."...or was that the Sabbath? Or does it matter?). We maintain that the Bible is inspired. I think we must believe as well that those who canonized the Bible were inspired...and that this same inspiration is not beyond us today. This is an awesome responsibility. It is also very scary recognizing the sad fragmented state of the universal Christian community. (I am not necessarily advocating an open canon, but saying that we have the same power to make culture-transcending decisions today as did those who formed the Bible.)

So for now:
1. Scripture is authoritative.
2. The Christian community is authoritative.
3. Neither stands alone.
4. Both require the work of the Holy Spirit.

[Stan Hall]

Well, for example, there's the New Inclusive Version which makes the Bible gender-neutral. God the "Father" becomes "Father-Mother" and His Son becomes "Child." Other changes are made to make homosexuality acceptable etc. I believe there are a few others like that but I don't remember their names.
Also certain denominations have published their own Bibles with changes made to fit their own doctrines.

[Mark Metcalfe]

It's been demonstrated well to me recently that there are great hindrances (misunderstandings?) with sola scriptura - "scripture alone." Scripture should play a rather large part in the life of the Christian community - way more than any single individual. But to say that it is the sole authority is impossible and even perhaps counter-biblical.

The role of the Christian community must be recognized not as a lemming-like mob following the black-and-white words found in a stagnant and out-dated book (which we know isn't nearly as "black and white" as we try to make it most of the time). Rather, the Christian community is to carefully and corporately read and interpret scripture with the ever-promised presence of the Holy Spirit.

Let's not forget that the Christian community formed scripture (Someone once said something to the effect of, "Scripture was formed for humanity, not humanity for scripture."...or was that the Sabbath? Or does it matter?). We maintain that the Bible is inspired. I think we must believe as well that those who canonized the Bible were inspired...and that this same inspiration is not beyond us today. This is an awesome responsibility. It is also very scary recognizing the sad fragmented state of the universal Christian community. (I am not necessarily advocating an open canon, but saying that we have the same power to make culture-transcending decisions today as did those who formed the Bible.)

So for now:
1. Scripture is authoritative.
2. The Christian community is authoritative.
3. Neither stands alone.
4. Both require the work of the Holy Spirit.

Hi Jeremy. Good note.

My original question asks about the Bible as an authority, not the authority. I hope everyone is clear on that.

What is Wesley's quadrilateral?

1. Scripture
2. Tradition
3. Reason
4. Experience

Do I have that correct from memory?

I am most intrigued by your final statement that "we have the same power
to make culture-transcending decisions..." [as the canonizer did?]. I think
we may be more close to an "open canon" that you think. What are the
ramifications of this? Can Scripture be trusted? Can the canon be trusted?
What if it cannot be trusted?

Mark

[Mark Metcalfe]

Do you have some particular problem with The Manual's statement on the Bible?

No.

[Barbara Moulton]

I am a little unsure from your post. Do you feel that "..validating the Bible as an authority..." and supporting "....the King James Version as the best source for Scriptural integrity...." are the same thing?

[Jeremy D. Scott]

Hi Jeremy. Good note.

My original question asks about the Bible as an authority, not the authority. I hope everyone is clear on that.

I was clear on that and I still answered your question (#1 in my "so for now"). However, we ("we" = evangelical Christianity, for now) act as though scripture is the final word on all decisions almost 99% of the time. That just doesn't work. We quote word-for-word sentences from the Bible to ourselves and to the world as if these stand-alone statements are all we need to make a point.

What is Wesley's quadrilateral?

1. Scripture
2. Tradition
3. Reason
4. Experience

Do I have that correct from memory?
Yes, though I've heard several times now that it's better put as a three-legged stool than a quadrilateral. 2, 3, & 4 are the legs. The floor is 1, and the seat of the stool is our doctrine upon which we sit.

I am most intrigued by your final statement that "we have the same power
to make culture-transcending decisions..." [as the canonizer did?]. I think
we may be more close to an "open canon" that you think. What are the
ramifications of this? Can Scripture be trusted? Can the canon be trusted?
What if it cannot be trusted?

Mark

When I say "open canon," I mean the adding to the 66 books of the Bible. That can't happen. However, if by open canon you mean new interpretation, revelation, and decision-making as time goes on, then yeah, that's where we ought to be...but again, as a corporate body (not as individuals telling the rest of the world what the Bible means and says on their sole insight; most everyone is guilty of this, including pastors, theologians, and televangelists). I realize the incredibly hard task that this is and will be.

It's not a matter of whether scripture or the canon can be trusted. It's more a matter of whose hands it is in - can we trust ourselves? So I guess my answer to your question is "Yes," we can trust scripture.

A question for you: What is it that prompts you to ask this question? Why would we trust scripture any less today than our fathers did 1700 years ago?

[Mark Metcalfe]

A question for you: What is it that prompts you to ask this question? Why would we trust scripture any less today than our fathers did 1700 years ago?

It seems to me that the floor and seat of the stool are not as well supported
by the three legs as they once were. Tradition has certainly suffered. Reason
is up for debate. Experience is often questionable.

For numbers of centuries, Bible passages have meant one thing (or a
relatively narrow set of things) that in recent years may mean something
else altogether. Stan Hall brings up some of the more obvious things that
are difficult for many to accept. But there are other debates: See "What
is the gospel message" thread in the Theology section.

Mark
---
I posted some humor in "What do you get..." thread that might illustrate
some of my points with a tongue-in-cheek look at exegeting a Stop sign.

9. Scholar

A scholar from a Jesus seminar concludes that the passage "STOP"
undoubtably was never uttered by Jesus himself, but belongs
entirely to stage III of the gospel tradition, when the church was
first confronted by traffic in its parking lot.

10. New Testament Scholar

A NT scholar notices that there is no stop sign on Mark street but
there is one on Matthew and Luke streets, and concludes that the
ones on Luke and Matthew streets are both copied from a sign on a
completely hypothetical street called "Q". There is an excellent
300 page discussion of speculations on the origin of these stop
signs and the differences between the stop signs on Matthew and
Luke street in the scholar's commentary on the passage. There is
an unfortunate omission in the commentary, however; the author
apparently forgot to explain what the text means.

11. Old Testament Scholar

An OT scholar points out that there are a number of stylistic
differences between the first and second half of the passage
"STOP". For example, "ST" contains no enclosed areas and 5 line
endings, whereas "OP" contains two enclosed areas and only one
line termination. He concludes that the author for the second
part is different from the author for the first part and probably
lived hundreds of years later. Later scholars determine that the
second half is itself actually written by two separate authors
because of similar stylistic differences between the "O" and the
"P".

12. Another Old Testament Scholar

Another prominent OT scholar notes in his commentary that the stop
sign would fit better into the context three streets back.
(Unfortunately, he neglected to explain why in his commentary.)
Clearly it was moved to its present location by a later redactor.
He thus exegetes the intersection as though the stop sign were not
there.

13. Yet another Old Testament Scholar

Because of the difficulties in interpretation, another OT scholar
amends the text, changing "T" to "H". "SHOP" is much easier to
understand in context than "STOP" because of the multiplicity of
stores in the area. The textual corruption probably occured
because "SHOP" is so similar to "STOP" on the sign several streets
back that it is a natural mistake for a scribe to make. Thus the
sign should be interpreted to announce the existence of a shopping
area.

[Mark Metcalfe]

I am a little unsure from your post. Do you feel that "..validating the Bible as an authority..." and supporting "....the King James Version as the best source for Scriptural integrity...." are the same thing?

No.

[Mark Metcalfe]

Do you have some particular problem with The Manual's statement on the Bible?

I went to the link Hans provided to see if the latest Manual had any revision,
but I got a 404 Not Found error message when I clicked on the Manual icon.
(I assume that the Article of Faith on the Holy Scriptures was not amended
at the last assembly. Was it?) I have reprinted the text from a previous
Manual, just to be clear to what I was referring. And my answer is still, No.

ARTICLE IV: THE HOLY SCRIPTURES

We believe in the plenary [absolute] inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, by which we understand the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments, given by divine inspiration, inerrantly revealing the will of God concerning us in all things necessary to our salvation, so that whatever is not contained therein is not to be enjoined as an Article of Faith.

[Hans Deventer]

Mark,

It was not amended, you still have the correct text.

[Mark Metcalfe]

Thank you for verifying.