Letters    

 ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE WORD OF GOD

Dear A. P.                                                                                                          April 17, 1989

     You asked me to write concerning the position of B. L. regarding the Word of God.

     First, if the Bible is not our authority in matters of faith and practice, what is? Man is left in a helpless and in a hopeless condition. Second, this issue is the line of demarcation between one who "believes" and one who does not; between one who is truly a converted man by the grace of God, and one who only professes to be a Christian.

      Third, ...Some disparage the Bible because it does not support their opinions. They have the cart before the horse: they instead ought to believe what the Bible clearly says. This is faith—believing what God has said. By exegesis we suck the meaning from the Scriptures, but by eisegesis we read our opinions into the Scriptures.

Dear M. K.                                                                                                       March 2, 1988

       ...The integrity and authority of the Bible lies at the very center of every issue: "Does the Bible accurately relate God's truth on the subject?" and, "Does Scripture have a right to dictate to us what is right?"

      An improper judgment here can affect our standing with God as well as affecting God's blessing or curse upon our children, and our grandchildren. It is therefore of supreme importance. ...

ON THE INSPIRATION AND PRESERVATION OF SCRIPTURE

Dear H. B.                                                                                                            July 11, 1983

       ...First, the verbally-inspired, original autographs of Scripture were never in one book at any time.

      Second, the question to ask is, "Are the Scriptures we possess the Scriptures that Timothy read, and that Paul defended as given by inspiration of God, and profitable" (II Timothy 3:16,  17)? "Are they the same Scriptures Christ commanded to be searched" (John 5:39)? Third, there are no original manuscripts available. We have never seen any, nor do we know anyone who has. They have perished from the earth with time. So, when I hold up my Bible, can I say, "Thus saith the Lord"? Fourth, if our new translations are based upon newly-found documents, then the church for the past two thousand years has had inaccurate versions.

      Fifth, if, as you argue, as much as any translation agrees with what Paul and others penned is the Word of God, and each successive translation obviously degenerating, what percentage of God's Word is to be found in Wycliffe's translation? then, what about Tyndale's? and what about the King James Version?

     I maintain God has preserved His Word and has thereby kept it inerrant. Since the Bible is God's Word, and is preserved "from this generation forever" (Psalm 12:6,7), it is thoroughly reliable, being faithful to the original. If this is not so, then we are left with the Neo-Orthodox position that the Bible merely "contains" the Word of God. ...Must go. May God honor you as you seek to honor Him.

ON THE PRESERVATION OF SCRIPTURE

Dear P. C.                                                                                                       March 10, 1988

      ...First, regarding which Bible is the Word of God: if you read French, use Louis Segond; if you read German, Luther's translation is excellent; Jerome translated the Greek manuscripts into Latin. They are a fine translation. But, beware of modern versions which are not the products of persecution, and are often the work of modernists who themselves are unbelievers.

     As to who is right when they differ, perhaps you would be good enough to share with me some of their differences. Are they contradictory? Is the sense lost? or is it another way of expressing the same thing?

     Second, regarding Peter's use of the word "Scriptures": Peter is arguing his authority as an apostle, and the veracity of the Gospel he preaches. "We were eyewitnesses of His Majesty" (II Peter 1:16). "The voice which came from Heaven, we heard when we were with Him in the holy mount" (v. 18). Yet, he declares he has a witness that is more trustworthy than what the disciples had seen and heard, and as John says, "handled of the Word of Life." He refers to the Word of prophecy which holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

     The notion that the word "Scriptures" refers only to the old Testament is absurd, and heretical. It is the same notion some of the Gnostics maintained in the first 300 years in the history of the Church.

     Third, regarding the "scribes" and the "pharisees": the Pharisees had added their set of laws and in essence had made "God's Word of none effect," not by corrupting the Scriptures, but by adding their oral tradition.

     The Scribes on the other hand were lawyers, or as the charter of Georgia later called them, "the pest and scourge of mankind." Theologically, they were liberals, but to charge them with corrupting the written Word of God is a false assumption, and one that contradicts the Psalmist in Psalm 12:6,7.

     By holding the notion that we do not have the word of God accurately preserved is to admit we are without any authority. It is to reduce our arguments to opinions—shifting sands at best.

Contents

Previous Next