Recent comments
Lionel Windsor on God, the universe and all that: Part 3
Lionel Windsor on God, the universe and all that: Part 3
Marc Aleso on God, the universe and all that: Part 3
Roger Gallagher on God, the universe and all that: Part 3
Lionel Windsor on God, the universe and all that: Part 3
Current discussions
God, the universe and all that: Part 3 (7 comments)
God, the universe and all that: Part 1 (7 comments)
John Wimber changes his mind (6 comments)
The Winter Olympics, basketball, Paul and teamwork (3 comments)
Stark treatment of the Crusades (2 comments)
Recent posts
God, the universe and all that: Part 3 by Lionel Windsor (7 comments). In the third instalment of a five-part series, Lionel Windsor discovers we humans are significant in the … more
Kids@church/Click: Some great material for your children’s Sunday School by Jean Williams (0 comments). I teach Sunday School for children regularly, but I don't always have the time and energy to write my … more
Experiencing confusion by Karen Beilharz (0 comments). I mentioned in my last Saturday post that for the next little while, we would be looking at … more
God, the universe and all that: Part 2 by Lionel Windsor (1 comment). In the second instalment of a five-part series, Lionel Windsor contemplates the extent of our significance in … more
Stark treatment of the Crusades by Peter Bolt (2 comments). Revisionist history is probably as common as it is unethical. There are lessons to learn from the past, but … more
God, the universe and all that: Part 1 by Lionel Windsor (7 comments). In the first instalment of a five-part series, Lionel Windsor ponders what astronomy has to teach us. … more
John Wimber changes his mind by Karen Beilharz (6 comments). As our beloved convenor Paul Grimmond has now left us, I shall be taking over the … more
The Winter Olympics, basketball, Paul and teamwork by Peter Sholl (3 comments). There are very few Mexicans competing in the Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympics. Well, that is what I assume from … more
Conroy’s internet filter: Full of contradictions by Guest blogger (10 comments). Anthony Caruana shows why Australian Christians should be concerned about Stephen Conroy's internet filter. It is imperative that … more
Busting the myths about the Crusades by Peter Bolt (15 comments). Across the 12th and 13th centuries, the noblemen of Europe conducted a series of ‘Crusades’ in the Holy Land. … more
Tony Payne
Paul is one of the Staff Editors at Matthias Media. He is married to Cathy and has three fantastic kids. He loves student ministry, reading, writing music and playing the saxophone, and is looking forward to meeting Jesus face to face.
Sola Panellists
Some other sites
we like (Why these?)
- Matthias Media
- The Briefing
- 9Marks
- Albert Mohler
- Anglican Church League
- challies
- David Ould
- ENTRUST
- EQUIP book club
- Girl Talk
- Gordon Cheng's Blog
- The Gospel Coalition
- Jean Williams's blog
- Justin Taylor
- Lionel Windsor
- Monergism
- Moore College
- MTS
- Nicole Starling's blog
- Phillip Jensen
- Pyromaniacs
- The Proclamation Trust
- Reformers' Bookshop
- The Simeon Trust
- The Ugley Vicar
Hello, Tony,
Thanks for this post, I think it’s true that we cannot pick out some things from the gospel truth and still expect it to hold together and stand.
After reading it, however, I wanted to ask a question, which could sound way too obvious for some, but please bear with a slow one like myself.
What did you mean by the phrase, “God’s word?”
The Bible as we know it?
Or, God’s revelation to “each of”/“all of” us?
My reasons behind asking it are as following.
First, I want to know how I can be confident about the 66 books we have in the Bible we use today. The Bible itself isn’t clear about what books are to be included when it refers to itself as Scriptures. Or, if it is, please let me know.
Secondly, because I want to know how to deal with the differences among manuscripts, eg. John chapter 8, or the last part of the Mark, etc.
Third, when there are so many people drawing different conclusions about various topics from reading the same Bible, and each declaring that he’s got it right, how can I be confident in my understanding of a particular topic, or a passage in the Bible? To say “we’re all correct” doesn’t seem right in view of the nature of truth (although post-modernists will be happy with it), and is self-negating in certain situations. To say “We all got it wrong” feels like I do not have enough faith in the work of the Holy Spirit who illuminats truth to His people, and also, too depressing to accept. But if that’s the case, let that be. But really, if “one is right and the other is wrong”, how can I be confident in saying it, especially I am not confident which one is right and why? (Should I go to a Bible college?)
Well Timothy! Big questions those, but I’m told that blog comments are supposed to be short and snappy. So here are some very brief answers:
1. In the quote, “God’s word” was being used synonymously with the Bible, which is a true and valid usage of the phrase. The Bible is God’s word.
2. If you want to know more about how the canon was settled, start with the New Bible Dictionary articles on Canon (OT and NT). And if you don’t have a New Bible Dictionary, go get one! (Every Christian should have one.) If you want to go further, try FF Bruce’s “The Canon of Scripture”.
3. If you really want the knowledge and skills to be able to sift through textual variants in the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, brace yourself for several years of tertiary level study. Sorry. The good news is that the modern editions of the Gk NT and the Heb OT are very solid, and nothing of substance hangs on the variants. You can read a good English translation (like the ESV) with a high degree of trust.
4. On the matter of different interpretations, there are (as you point out) three possibilities: everyone is right (illogical), everyone is wrong (impossible), or some are right and some wrong (the only option really). What do we do with the fact that there are different interpretations? The Bible itself tells us the answer: read 2 Peter 3:15-16 carefully and see what it tells you.
Warm regards
TP
Thank you for the response, Tony.
I agree that the blog comments are meant to be kept concise, and I expected that my question would not be answered in details here on a blog. However, I will take your advice, and will pursue further to learn about these issues on my own time. And, perhaps I will ask again someday, once I’ve given more thoughts and study into them.
Thanks.
A couple of comments re the logic behind the proposition…
Saying that Christian doctrine is like a certain set of blocks is an argument from analogy…and inevitably such arguments fall down (as most block towers do eventually
.
The second half of the post gives us better reasoning, but it seems to me that the ‘proof’ for the indivisibility of truth is reliant on us being able to see the connections. What about those aspects of Biblical doctrine which seem to be in tension with each other? What if we can’t immediately see a pattern? We need different criteria here.
Commenting rules
If you would like your comment to be considered for publication, please observe the following rules:
Failure to adhere to these rules will result in your comment being quietly deleted.
If you want to give us feedback but don't want your comments to appear on the blog, DON'T use the form below. Instead, please send us an email or click on the button below.
Your Comment
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.