Being the Church: One in Faith - The Holy Scriptures

“We believe in...The divine inspiration and supreme authority of the Old and New Testament Scriptures, which are the written Word of God-fully trustworthy for faith and conduct.”

I. WE BELIEVE THE BIBLE IS DIVINELY INSPIRED

Why do we believe this? Because it is a claim of Scripture itself!

“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness”(2 Tim 3:15).

“For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit”(2 Peter 1:21)

“But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.”(John 14:26).

“Behold, I have put my words in your mouth” (Jeremiah 1:9).

The Central Importance of the Bible

The Bible has always been central to the people of God.

Jesus was profoundly shaped by the scriptures, as is shown from the one account we have of his childhood when he asked questions and discussed with the Rabbi’s at the temple. He clearly knew both the Hebrew and Aramaic texts being familiar with the OT whose stories, songs, prophecy and wisdom.

The early Church likewise was built upon and established in the Holy Scriptures of the OT and increasingly the writings of the Apostles and their associates which now comprise what we call the NT.

Question 1 - How does the fact that Jesus was so profoundly shaped by the Scriptures challenge our own thinking and practice?

How we got our Bible?

When referring to the 66 books of the Bible we refers to these as the Canon of Scripture -

By canon we mean the “collection of books which form the original and authoritative written rule of the faith and practice of the Christian Church”

The word canon, in classical Greek, is properly a straight rod, “a rule” in the widest sense. i.e. “the rule of faith,” “the holy library”(Jerome)

Determining the canon was a process conducted first by Jewish rabbis and scholars and later by early Christians.

This is not to say that it was they and not God who decided what books belonged in the biblical canon.

A book of Scripture belonged in the canon from the moment God inspired its writing. It was simply a matter of God’s convincing His human followers which books should be included in the Bible.

This is why Peter says in 2 Peter 1:16-21: “We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain. And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. 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. “

What made a book canonical?

This was important because the Bible was not one book but a series of individual scrolls and there were thousands of such scrolls and multiple copies in existence. There were also known forgeries (see 2 Thes 2:2) and lots of extra writings about Jesus and the Church available (see John 21:25; Luk 1:1).

A book was determined to be canonical by asking a series of questions:

(i). Is the book written by a know prophet or Apostle?

(ii). Is the claim to be Apostolic justified by known evidence?

e.g Did John the writer of the Gospel write 1, 2 and 3 John as well as Revelation? Consideration of stylistic and linguistic and theological similarities.

e.g. Who is the James of the Epistle?

(iii). Is the book consistent with recognised Scripture?

there were some uncertainties about some books of OT and NT due to content or an unknown/uncertain authorship (e.g. Who wrote Ecclesiastes? Hebrews?)

how did Song of Songs and Esther get into the Bible given the eroticism of the former and the lack of reference to God in the latter?

Who is James and does he contradict Paul on justification?

This is the reasons why much of the OT apocrypha was rejected, it did not accord with the historical teaching of the prophets and advocated practices inconsistent with their teaching including praying for the dead in 2 Maccabees 12:45 and the books of Judith and Tobit justify deception, make salvation dependent on works and suggest that giving money makes atonement for sin. These inconsistencies would not pass the Mosiac tests of Deut 13:1-3; Deut 18:20-22) for this reason much of the Apocrypha was rejected because it was not authentic.

Such a process is not easy, takes time particularly in an era where there was no mass communication mechanisms or even a printing press, But is ok for a number of reasons...

The Apostle John makes it clear that all claims for truth need to be tested - 1 John 4:1-6.

The Apostle Peter speaks of the desire of god to ensure that we have a divine record of His word that he both inspired and supertintended - 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. “

Dr Luke tells us that it was his intention to write down for us all “that Jesus began to do and to teach” and later all that he continued to do after He ascended into Heaven (see Acts 1:1ff).

Paul tells us that in Romans 15:4: “For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope. “

And John tells us that Jesus, the living Word of God, has made known God to us and he wrote down an account from among the “many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. “(John 20:30-31).

The OT Old Testament Canon:

The OT is a name that does not appear in Jewish literature. Jews prefer to call their 39 books of Scripture the Tanak—an acronym formed from the first letters of Torah (Law), Naviim (Prophets), and Kethubim (Writings).

These are called the “Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms” (the first book of the Writings in the Hebrew Bible) in Luke 24:44 (NIV).

The OT canon is ratified by the fact that these books were those accepted in the time of Christ and endorsed by him, in at least 275 direct quotations.

And Paul speaking of the OT says that Timothy has “known the holy scriptures which are able to make you wise for salvation”(2 Tim 3;15) this is reference to a recognised and clearly delineated body of literature which is “God breathed”

Prophetical books were already considered closed by the time of Ezra and Nehemiah around 400-300 BC before the so-called “silent years” and the actual official recognition of the books, including any writings “is probably to be placed about 100 A.D...and was the work of the Synod held at Jamnia (Jabney) near Jaffa about 90 A.D.”(E.J. Young). (In Hebrew the Council of Jamnia is known as the Great Bet Din, literally, house of judgment).

The NT Canon:

The NT was originally written in Greek although there were probably two exceptions, Matthew's gospel and Hebrews

Papias (ca. 130 CE): “Matthew composed his work in the Hebrew dialect, and each translated as best they could” (Quoted by Eusebius in Ecclesiastical History, 3.39).

Eusebius, (Ecclesiastical History, 6.14. “In the work called Hypotyposes, to sum up the matter briefly, he [Clement of Alexandria c. 185 AD] has given us abridged accounts of all the canonical Scriptures…The Epistle to the Hebrews he asserts was written by Paul, to the Hebrews, in the Hebrew tongue, but that it was carefully translated by Luke, and published among the Greeks.”

The NT Canon began to be referred to quite early, so Clement of Rome mentioned at least eight New Testament books (A.D. 95). Ignatius of Antioch acknowledged about seven books (A.D. 115). Polycarp, a disciple of John the apostle, acknowledged 15 books (A.D. 108). Later, Irenaeus mentioned 21 books (A.D. 185). Hippolytus recognized 22 books (A.D. 170-235).

The first official “canon” was the Muratorian Canon, which was compiled in AD 170 which included all of the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter, and 3 John.

In AD 363, the Council of Laodicea stated that only the Old Testament (along with one book of the Apocrypha) and 26 books of the New Testament (everything but Revelation) were canonical and to be read in the churches.

The Council of Hippo (AD 393) and the Council of Carthage (AD 397) however included Revelation and affirmed the current 27 books as authoritative and from that time was accepted throughout the Latin Church.

Question 2 - Why is it important to know how the Bible came about and how we should understand the different types/genres of literature contained in it?

II. WE BELIEVE THE BIBLE HAS SUPREME AUTHORITY:

In the 15th and 16th Centuries in particular, the Protestant Reformation appealed to the authority of Holy Scripture to challenge some of the extra-biblical and indeed unbiblical traditions that had grown up and taken root in Church, leading them to reestablish the supremacy of scripture the Church for all maters of “faith and conduct.”

Indeed it was Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms in April 16, 1521 who said to Emperor Charles V of the the Holy Roman Empire and to all attendant bishops and teachers who asked him to recant of his beliefs, :

“Unless I am convinced by sacred Scripture, or by evident reason, I cannot recant, for my conscience is held captive by the word of God, and to act against conscience is neither right nor safe.”

Luther famously ended his defiance with the words, “Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise. God help me.”

The Reformation restored the Bible to the language of the people:

In a famous debate between William Tyndale and a Roman Catholic priest, commenting on the illegality of having the Bible in the English language at the time Tyndale said: “I defy the Pope and all his laws, if God spare my life, I will make a boy that driveth the plough know more of the Scripture than thou dost.”

The central tenets of the Protestant reformation were:

Sola Gratia - by grace alone

Sola Fide - through faith alone

Solus Christus - In Christ alone

Sola Scriptura - According to Scripture alone.

Soli Deo Gloria - for God’s glory alone!

And indeed this is where we stand today:

Our Evangelical statements such as this one and that of the FIEC were framed as challenges to what C.H Spurgeon referred to in 1887-88 as the “Downgrade Controversy” - reminders to us of the central and supreme place Scripture must have in the Church.

Spurgeon lamented: “Alas! many are returning to the poisoned cups which drugged that declining generation. . . . Too many ministers are toying with the deadly cobra of 'another gospel,' in the form of 'modern thought.'...The case is mournful. Certain ministers are making infidels. Avowed atheists are not a tenth as dangerous as those preachers who scatter doubt and stab at faith. . . . Germany was made unbelieving by her preachers, and England is following in her tracks."

3 things were especially in Spurgeon’s mind when he warned the Baptist Union of the drift to theological liberalism - these 3 doctrines, Spurgeon said, were being abandoned: (i). biblical infallibility, (ii). substitutionary atonement, and the (iii). finality of judgment for those who died outside Christ. (Note: All 3 have been abandoned by so called “open evangelicals like Steve Chalke and Brian McClaren & Rob Bell).

What’s wrong with this? - 'We know that the first creation story – by looking at its structure and dating – was very probably written to subvert the claims made by the extremely violent, hierarchical, sexist, nationalist and dehumanising creation story of the Babylonians – the superpower of the day.” (Steve Chalke)

What’s wrong with this? - “I must add, though, that I don't believe making disciples must equal making adherents to the Christian religion. It may be advisable in many (not all!) circumstances to help people become followers of Jesus and remain within their Buddhist, Hindu, or Jewish contexts.” - (Brian D. McLaren).

What’s wrong with this? “At the center of the Christian tradition since the first church have been a number who insist that history is not tragic, hell is not forever, and love, in the end, wins and all will be reconciled to God.” - Rob Bell

Evangelical Statements define all 3 perspectives, among others, these are the things that make us distinctly evangelical but more importantly, Biblical and Apostolic!

General Secretary Steve Clifford of the Evangelical Alliance which removed Oasis Trust and Steve Chalke from membership in 2014 said: "Generations of Christians have faced the challenge of making the gospel relevant within their cultural settings. The danger we all face, and I fear Steve has succumbed to, is that we produce 'a god' in our own likeness or in the likeness of the culture in which we find ourselves.”

And it is worth noting that Spurgeon, though despairing of organised unions said this: “We fear it is hopeless ever to form a society which can keep out men base enough to profess one thing and believe another; but it might be possible to make an informal alliance among all who hold the Christianity of their fathers. Little as they might be able to do, they could at least protest, and as far as possible free themselves of that complicity which will be involved in a conspiracy of silence. If for a while the evangelicals are doomed to go down, let them die fighting, and in the full assurance that their gospel will have a resurrection when the inventions of "modern thought" shall be burned up with fire unquenchable.”

Question 3 - Taking into consideration past and current controversy over the supreme authority of Scripture, why is it important that we make a stand and how should we do it?

III. WE BELIEVE THE BIBLE IS FULLY TRUSTWORTHY FOR FAITH AND CONDUCT.

“Why the Bible is still central - Not only devotion: discipleship.

Reading and studying scripture has been seen as central to how we are to grow in the love of God; how we come to understand God and his truth more fully; and how we can develop the moral muscle to live in accordance with the gospel of Jesus even when everything seems to be pulling the other way. Since these remain vital aspects of Christian living, the Bible has been woven in to the fabric of normal Christian life at every point.” (Tom Wright).

“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. “(2 Tim 3:15-16).

Now it is important to understand a few, but by no mans exhaustive application of key points when applying Scripture to our own day and age...

The Bible is progressively revealed so that the OT laws and regulations are to be understood in the light of the New Testament and not the other way round.

e.g. Dietary laws; special holy days, etc do not apply to NT believers and have become a matter of conscience for believers to resolve without causing unnecessary offence - - So Rom 13

2. Where the NT speaks clearly and decisively about any matter of faith and practice we are bound by the underlying moral principle, whatever the cultural expression.

e.g. the wearing of head coverings was a cultural expression of submission of women to their husbands and is not binding today in terms of its external expression, though the relevant cultural principle of male-female submission needs to find expression in our day!

Likewise though certain practices were legally permitted in the NT world, for example slavery, this should not be taken to imply that it is acceptable for a Christian today to own slaves.

3. The Bible is to be interpreted honestly , according to the time-honoured principle that any interpretation should be consistent and generally in accordance with its plain meaning.

Where literal sense makes good sense we should not make it nonsense!

So for example, when the Bible says to believers as it does “Do not lie to each other”(Col 3:9) we would not interpret this as conditional upon certain circumstances because we know that to “bear false witness” is to go against one of the 10 Commandments and that lying is consistently condemned through Scripture. We would take Colossians 3:9 at face value and interpret it literally, without any cultural ifs or buts to negate its implication for us today

However, let’s take Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 7:1 “Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.” - We could interpret this literally and make a case for singleness, Indeed there would be nothing wrong with such an interpretations as being married is not required of Christians and indeed Jesus himself was single. But if you tried to force it into a rule, then you would be going beyond the text; contradicting what the Bible has to say about marriage and not understanding the historical context in which Paul was writing (see vs 29-35).

4. The Bible is historically and culturally contextualized and does not speak to every human condition or give us answers for every human situation.

Should a Christian drive a car; take advantage of IVF treatments; have a vaccine for Covid 19; buy a house; go to University, play the lottery; kiss their boyfriend or girlfriend before they get married, get a tattoo? etc?

Question 4 - Should a Christian drive a car; take advantage of IVF treatments; have a vaccine for Covid 19; buy a house; go to University, play the lottery; kiss their boyfriend or girlfriend before they get married, get a tattoo, etc?

No answers in the Bible?!- So how should we determine an answer?

These are matters of faith and practice so we need to know hat we should do?

The answer is to study the underlying moral principle and decide each on its merit! And where the Bible says nothing, not be bound by another’s conscience - Romans 14!

We are not free to add rules to scripture and bind people to them nor are we free to claim that we can do this by reference to a claimed supernatural revelation from God (e.g. “God has told me you are going to marry me!”)

5. Where the Bible speaks clearly as to matters of faith and conduct, it alone should determine our practice and not be put aside by the teachings of men, however senior or influential they may be in the Church.

For those who would suggest that Jesus is simply one of many roads that lead to salvation we respond with John 14:6 among other scriptures and refer such to the historic teaching of the Christian church.

Likewise if someone was to deny the existence of hell, we refer them to the teaching of Jesus(e.g Matt 5:22;8:12;25:41) and the historic teaching of the Christian church.

To conclude:

The bible is sufficient to speak to us concerning all matters of faith and conduct.

This means we should search the Scriptures to discover what God would have us to think, about a particular doctrinal issue or to do, in a particular situation. This is encouraging in that it will tell us about everything God wants to tell us about that question.

We should not go against a plain teaching of scripture just because we don’t like what it says or want to do the opposite - that is sin! - James 4:17.

We should remember that he does not tell us everything we want to know - "The secret things belong to the Lord our God" (Deut. 29:29).

We should ever be willing to test our thinking, by asking others and seeking their advice based on their maturity or wisdom

We should be careful not to go against a historical understanding of scripture without being able to demonstrate that it is blatantly erroneous.

We should be very careful not violate conscience!

But it does mean that when we are facing a problem of genuine importance to our Christian life, we can approach Scripture with the confidence that from it God will provide us with guidance for that problem.

Question 5 - What is your key takeaway from tonight’s study? The most important thing you learned? The challenge you want to meet?