HISTORICAL (Continued)

In our last session we looked at the impact of Scripture upon the proponents and the opponents of the Scriptural message. In today’s session we are continuing in somewhat the same area. Today we are beginning to look at what the Scripture has transmitted to the reader.

Garner (Bible Analysis) has well noted that "The Word of God is the only book, religious or secular, that has survived the ages with wide respect and influence in matters of morals and religion."

This is a very accurate statement. Other books may be relevant to society but few of these are very old. Even the great impact of the writings of Shakespear upon the English speaking peoples of the world are not of a great age. The writings of Shakespear date back to about the same age as does the King James Bible.

The venerable King James Bible is about four hundred years old. But, this is a mere fraction of the time that the Bible, Itself, has been in existence. The King James did not spring forth upon the scene of Itself; It is part of a chain of Scriptural transmission which goes back, in some cases, for two thousand years - and more!

In the early part of the 19^th century the great "McGuffy’s Readers" were the standard of the educator’s art. Today the only place one generally finds one of these "Readers" is on the shelf of a museum. Even the "Dick and Jane" which were used to introduce children of my generation to the wonders of the written word are, today, out of date.

Textbooks, popular magazines, even video and audio productions, find themselves out of date after a short stint in the sunlight of popular appeal. But, the Bible which spoke to my great-great-grandparents will still be relevant in the day of my great-great-grandchildren.

This is an evidence of the inspiration of the Scripture. God is The God of Eternity. His Words are not restricted to any special time or culture. Indeed, God is proven as the Constant Contemporary as He speaks, with relevance and comfort to people of all ages, both chronological and historical, and of all cultures. His Words deal with human emotion and offer answers to the problems of humanity, no matter the age or the cultural surroundings.

This is an evidence of the Supernatural Inspiration and preservation of the Words of God to all humanity.

So, also, is the great integrity of the preservation of the Words of God an evidence to the Supernatural Inspiration of the Scripture.

W. A. Criswell (The Criswell Study Bible) says that "The evidence for the textual integrity of the Biblical manuscripts is unequaled in the history of humanity."

The strange thing, to me, is that people who make statements like this above, will argue that the Scripture needs to be updated to square with modern archeology. That, rather than updates in language, lies at the heart of almost all of the modern English language versions. As an article of faith, it seems, the all will argue that the Traditional Text which underlies the King James Bible is an aberrant text which needs correcting in our day.

Foolishness! If the Bible needs corrected it, stands to reason that it was not preserved. If the Bible were not preserved, it cannot be God’s Eternal Words. If the Bible is not God’s Eternal Words, it is simply another book from antiquity and has no real message for modern man.

The effect which the Bible has upon men and women, through the ages, argues against the above. God did not let His Words lay in the dust of ages while they were supplanted by an aberration for hundreds of years. God did not bring the Protestant Reformation into existence as a return to a trust in His Scripture as a bed rock of doctrine and practice, if that Scripture were a false impression of the true Words.

It is the eclectic text of those modern versions which is aberrant. The writings of the early Church Fathers argue for a preserved text. The earliest translations argue for a preserved text. The great bulk of the evidence available from manuscript examination argue for a preserved text. The blessing of God upon those who gave honor to the Traditional Text in the past five hundred years of preaching, argue for a preserved Text.

It is foolishness to argue that God preserved His text in only about 5 to 15% of the available evidence. It is foolishness to argue that God has allowed from 85 to 95% of the available evidence to be error. To allege such is to defame the Glory, Power, and Goodness of the God of that Scripture!

Smyth (How We Got Our Bible) argues that the transmission, through the ages and throughout the world, of the Scripture argue for an inspired Scripture. This great transmission lies in stark contrast to the transmission of other ancient works. "Jesus promised that His words would not pass away... [C]ompare ...[w]ith the mansucripts by which the principle Greek and Roman writings have come down to us." Smyth goes on to present several illustrations of the principle of this transmission.

"The history of Thucydides... Written ab out 400 B.C., is available today on the basis of eight manuscripts.

"...the Roman historian Tacitus (c. 199 A.D.) ... Two manuscripts."

As opposed to the small amounts of these manuscript evidences, we have over 5000 fragments, books, and complete Bibles of the Sacred Page which have survived antiquity. When we recall that there were other religious traditions, some of which were older than the Words of God, we must be either biased in our judgment or willfully ignorant of the facts to not see this amazing preservation of ancient Biblical manuscripts as a sign of an inspired Scripture which has been preserved by God.

This preservation was prophesied by Jesus in Matthew 5:18 when He said, "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Since this was given as a prophecy, the very fact that the Scripture has been preserved, in the vast numbers which are available to us, is a proof of the veracity of prophecy, which in turn is an evidence of the inspiration of God’s Book.

And then, sadly and inexplicably, there are critics, even Fundamental Christian critics, who will argue that the 95% of the evidence of the preservation of the Scripture is wrong. In an appeal to their own minds, as opposed to the power of God, they argue that the preserved Scripture is wrong. They seek to find newer, and newer yet, base texts for the newer translations.

It is as though they really believe that God couldn’t do the job of preservation so they must try to help the "Old Guy" out! Good Grief! Where is our trust in the Words of God. If we can’t trust His preserving power, how can we trust the "best efforts" of fallen mankind.

These modern day arguments boil down to a belief that the true text of Scripture was lost for over one thousand years. This brings into doubt, to any reasonable person, whether or not we have ever managed to "restore" what God has "lost." Worse, this is an affront to the words of Jesus Christ that the Words of Scripture, to their minutest part of the very letters, would never be lost.

So, these religious leaders tell us that we can’t trust the Scripture. They tell us that we can’t trust Jesus. Just where, I might ask, is our faith to find a resting place?

To argue against the preservation of the Scripture is to argue against both inspiration and the promises of God to preserve His message to man. Since this argues that the Scripture, this argues against the doctrine of inspiration.

Further, to argue against the preservation of Scripture is to argue that God was either not powerful enough to protect His Words from the onslaughts of Satan and man, or that God willfully withheld His true message from the churches, the Body of Christ, and the Christians of centuries who made up those churches.

Either way these arguments argue against the rational for inspiration. If God did not have the power to preserve His Words, He is not the all powerful God which Scripture portrays. If this is true, then Scripture is wrong and not trustworthy. It is not the message of an all powerful God to a lost humanity.

If God refused to preserved His Scripture, then He deemed the message of the Scripture as unimportant. Therefore we must question whether or not He would have inspired that which was to be only transitory and not vital to humanity. This would call into question, also, the love by which Jesus came to the cross. If the message were not for all men at all times, what right have we to believe that the cross is for us in this day? After all, don’t we get our belief system from those Words of Scripture? It we can’t trust the Words to be eternally sealed, why should we expect our souls to be eternally saved?

To have such a low view of Scripture as to argue that it had been lost in time is to show an ignorance of sacred history. It would argue that the Reformation, as we noted above, and all the great revivals of the past several centuries, and the influence of His Words upon society, were based on an impure text.

If God is, indeed, The God of Purity and Holiness, how could we expect that He would shackle His movements among humanity to that which was impure?

Further, if the rational for the newer English language translations is true, namely that the text of the Reformation Bible’s was impure while the eclectic texts of those newer translations is far superior, we are struck with the incongruity of the great disintegration of societal values since the mass introduction of "translations, more accurate and easier to understand," which have been based on the (so-called) "restored texts." It would mean that the true Words of God have had a debilitating effect on society while the former texts, which are derided as impure and faulty, had an ennobling effect on society.

The "free fall" of societal values since we have, as a people, jettisoned the Traditional Text from our Ministerial Schools and churches, is one more example that the Traditional Text is, indeed, the inspired and preserved Words of God.

HISTORICAL (Continued)

In today’s session we would like to close out this section by stating, unequivocally, that we can trust the Scripture.

It might sound like this is something that wouldn’t need to be addressed. But, in today’s religious world we must address the issue. Almost all of the Bible versions and translations on the market today in our English speaking world are filled with footnote, center column reference, and with lines in the very text itself, arguments that we can not trust the Bible, at least not all of it, to be the actual Words of God.

The "Modernist" claim of the early 20^th century has become an article of faith among too many Fundamentalists of our day. Even the Fundamentalist will no longer, as they once were, be expected to hold their Bible aloft, at least in their mind’s eye, and say with any firm conviction that, "This is the Word of God." Instead, they, as the Modernist of one hundred years ago, will more than likely argue that the Bible only "contains" the Word of God.

There is a vast difference between the two statements. If the Bible is the Word of God, this means that we can trust every single word and passage to be the message of God for us. If the Bible only contains the Word of God, we are left to conjecture as to what are His Words and what are the inserted words of man. What, is the question raised by such an argument, are the Words of God and what are the words of man?

How can we answer this question? We are told that the proper answer is to consult the words of the "experts." They are the one’s who have given us the Word for our day.

Somehow this seems a poor word to trust. We are asked to believe that God could not, or at least did not, preserved His Words. He preserved the general message only. We are asked to consider that the only way we can have any degree of certainty as to what are the Words of God is to have faith in man.

This seems a strange, and a flawed argument. Man is a sinner. At least that is the "message" which the Bible contains. But, if man is the only bridge we have between the error of a passage and the truth of a passage, this makes a sinner in charge of the transmission of the message of God that is meant to transform the sinner into a saint. Since man is flawed and fallen, and since man is the master of what is and what isn’t the Words of God, this means that those words so conveyed are the product of man’s ability. This would mean that the very words of our scriptures (small case intended) are "preserved" by the sin perverted intellect of man.

This would mean that the words so "preserved" are subject to the flaws of the sin nature of mankind. This makes the words, themselves, untrustworthy. If a liar always tells lies and then tells you that he is a liar... Do you see the intellectual dishonesty of accepting a "Word" as being from God if it were not God Who preserved those Words in some supernatural manner?

But, the glorious Truth is that we can trust the Bible. It is the very Words of God.

Strong (Systematic Theology) argues that since the Bible has been held by the churches since the original autographs were written, it is logical to assume it trustworthy. A document which appears to be ancient, which does not show evidence of forgery, and which is "...found in proper custody..." should be considered genuine unless there is "...sufficient evidence..." to the contrary.

It is here that the modern day "Bible critic" will stand and shout, "Ah, ha. The oldest and best manuscripts find thousands of errors in the Traditional Text of the Scripture. That is sufficient evidence."

But, is it?

I heard an old radio show last night. In this show a robbery had taken place. In the room where the robbery had taken place there was found a glass with a set of fingerprints which did not match anyone in the home. It was assumed that these fingerprints were those of the burglar. His fingerprints had been found. They were out of place with the persons known to have been in the room. Therefore, the man whose fingerprints these were, he was the burglar. That was the conclusion of the evidence.

But, the glass was not from that home, either. It had been "planted" by the real burglar. Therefore the evidence was tainted because it was not in its natural place either.

These two "oldest and best" to which appeal is made by the skeptic, er critic, were not found in Bible preaching churches. One was found on a dusty shelf, where it had laid lost for many years, in the Vatican library. The other was found in the burning barrel of a Roman Catholic monastery."

When we consider that the Roman church had proscribed the reading of the Bible by the people in their native tongues, this would strongly suggest that these copies were not "found in their proper custody." When we consider that these two manuscripts are written in Greek, while the Roman church had buried the Greek when they announced the Latin of Jerome as the proper Words of the Bible, this would strongly suggest that these copies were not "found in their proper custody."

Even if the glass, in the illustration above, were from the room where the robbery had taken place, if those fingerprints were smudged, the "evidence" on the glass would not have been trustworthy.

When we consider the vast differences between these two "oldest and best," as they differ among themselves three thousand times in the Gospels alone, we must consider one, or both, of them to be "smudged" beyond any standard of evidence. When we consider, further, that those few copies which disagree with the Traditional Text number around ten percent, many would argue quite less, we can not say, based on the evidence, that the Traditional Text is in error. It is obvious, based on the simple evidence, that all error lies with those manuscripts which disagree with the Traditional Text.

Again, as Strong said, since the books of the New Testament "...are found in the custody of the Church, their natural and legitimate depository, [They] must be presumed to be genuine."

Some argue for "copyist error." Such is slight. Due to the care taken by the copyist, and the evidence of the great similarity of the 85% to 95% of the manuscripts which make up the base of the Traditional Text, we can trust the text to be true.

Strong, again, argues for trust. "Copies of ancient documents, made by those most interested in their faithfulness are presumed to correspond with the originals, even though those originals no longer exist."

The churches of the Living Word had a vested interest in the veracity of the Written Word. It was these Words which spoke of Him. Their knowledge of Him, and the grace offered in Him, was held in that sacred volume. They considered these Words to be the very Words of God to humanity. It was to their own spiritual interest to rightly transmit those Words. To falsely transmit those Words would have been considered a sin against the Savior and their God.

Finally, Strong argues that, "Since it was in the church’s interest to have faithful copies, the burden of proof rests upon the objector to the Christian documents."

As we have already seen, the "proof" offered by those who deny the preservation, and by extension the inspiration of the Words of Scripture, seems flimsy and fabricated.

Make no mistake, the doctrines of preservation and inspiration are conjoined. They can not be separated. If God had inspired the original documents, it would follow that He wanted to be very precise in His message. If God had allowed that message to be lost, either He lacked the power to protect the message or He deemed it not important. Since we know that God has the power to do what it is His will to do, we must believe that He either inspired, and preserved, His message because of its importance, or He didn’t inspire the message and could have cared less if it was lost for hundreds of years.

There were copies, those 5 - 15% that disagree with the Traditional Text, which were corrupted. Mostly this was the work of those who taught doctrinal, of lived doctrinal, error.

Origin, an early textual critic, believed that nothing in Scripture should be in opposition to his own belief system. Since he was not orthodox in his theology, he changed much of the Scripture which was copied at his Scriptorium, to fit his own belief system. He considered these changes to be corrections.

As an aside, both of the "oldest and best" from above were products of Origin’s Alexandria Scriptorium.

To find such a doctrinal bias in copyists in our day, one has only to look at John 1:1 in the "house translation" of the Jehovah’s Witness group. In here we find such a corruption of the text made for doctrinal purposes. They have changed the universally acknowledged reading of this verse from "and the Word was God" to read, "and the word became a god." This was done in order to square their scripture with their doctrinal presuppositions.

I have over forty translations and versions in my study. Only the Jehovah’s Witness translation reads as above. As with this illustration only a small percentage of the available manuscripts would be tampered with in this manner.

Thus, it would follow that only a small percentage would be corrupted further, in later copies, from this copyist’s pen. Therefore, the preponderance of texts which agree with the Traditional Text (Which, by the way, is the basis of our King James Bible.) would be reasonably expected to be that which God has originally inspired and preserved.

I know that I’ve made this week’s session seem to be a defense of the King James Bible. Such was not my intent. What I wanted to show was that the idea that we really can not be certain what is, and what is not, the Words of God, as implied by the footnotes and marginal references of many of our modern day produced Bibles, is an error. We can trust the inspiration of the Scripture because it is evident that God has preserved that Scripture.

This is an evidence of His power and His love to us in that He wants us to have this Message even in our day. It is that important. It is also His Words because of His inspiration.

In our next session we will begin to look at the position of the churches as to inspiration.

POSITION OF CHURCHES

The historical churches have always accepted the Scripture as the inspired Words of God. It is only those churches which have gone into apostasy, or the cultic churches, which have refused to accept the Words of God as inspired. The fidelity of any group to the Lord is mirrored in their fidelity to His Words.

Simmons (A Systematic Study of Bible Doctrine) argues why the churches which are led by the Spirit are willing to accept the Scripture. "If it [the Bible] is not a revelation from God then its writers were either deceived or else they were malicious deceivers." Bible believing churches, led by the Spirit of God, simply accept that the Bible is a revelation from God.

Over and over, especially in the Old Testament, the phrase, "The Word of the Lord," or some such variation on the theme, is repeated. Even in the New Testament, Peter is quoted as claiming that the message of Paul is inspired in the same manner as are the Scriptures of the Old Testament. "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do, also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." (II Peter 3:16)

We have been given a choice as to our acceptance of the Scripture as being the Words of God. It is the same choice as was given Eve in the Garden. "Yea, hath God said...’ Either the Scripture is the pure Words of God or it is something else.

Some would argue that the Scripture is partially the Word of God. The spiritual problem with this is that we are then compelled to question just what portions are the Words of God and which are not. The natural result of this mindset is that we have no Scripture which we can trust to be of God. How can we, a creature of sin, be able to consider what is of God and what is not of God? Or, for that matter, are we really a creature of sin? After all, if all the Scripture is not the Words of God, how can we believe the parts that speak of sin?

We are then left to choose who is worthy to decide just what part is, and what part is not, the Words of God. This means that we have replaced the Scripture as our rule of faith and practice. We have no real guide from eternity that we can follow if we do not have the Guide of the Words of God.

At this point man becomes the final arbitrator of what is the Message of God, rather than God. This has been done in the Roman Church where the concept of Church Tradition, and Church Teaching is considered on a level as equal to that of the Scripture. Practically speaking, these are given a level above Scripture as they are the arbitrators of what the Scripture is supposed to have said and meant. Before we speak too harshly of this practice, it is a logical and necessary conclusion to be reached if the Bible is merely partially the Words of God.

Many, especially today in the field of Biblical Criticism, argue for the authority of a "concept preservation." This is an argument that God has only promised to preserve the general idea, or the "story," of the Scriptural message. This is a de facto teaching of a partial inspiration since it then dictates that only the "authority" of the textual critic is able to consider just what it was that God really did say. Portions of the Scripture are footnoted as being, not in the "oldest and best" with the idea that God did not preserve His Words; He only preserved the general idea that He wished to convey.

This also weakens the message of Scripture as it opens the entire Scriptural library to the conjecture of human reasoning. There is no need to consider the message as settled for eternity if we are only to learn from the ideals of the analogist. We have replaced the firm "Thus saith the Lord," with the mercurial "This is what God meant to say."

Some will argue that the Scripture is not the Words of God. If this is true, if the Scripture is simply on the level with any other book of man, then the Bible can only give us the thoughts of man rather than the leading of God.

In John 3:11-12, Jesus said to Nicodemus, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen, and ye receive not our witness. If I have told you earthy things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?"

The basic argument which Jesus was making was that we can only explain things that we understand. We can only understand things that are based in the concept of our previous understanding and experience. It is necessary for one to have experienced Heavenly, or eternal, values to be able to explain them.

This being true, and it is since the concepts of eternity and spirit are not part of the experience of humanity which is a creature of time and physicality, we can have no spiritual guide if that Guide is not from God. A work of man, therefore, can not be an adequate guide into the spiritual realities of eternity. No mere man, no matter how good and gifted, can write with any authority on those subjects. Only a man who is writing under the influence of inspiration from the Spirit of God can write rightly on those subjects.

Even the witness of a human person to temporal matters may be colored by his own prejudices and experiences. It can be faulty. Consider the old story of the three blind men who were trying to describe an elephant. One of them held the tail and said that an elephant was long an narrow. The second was only allowed to touch the ear. He said that the elephant was flat. The third was only allowed to touch the side of the beast. He said that the elephant was built like a wall. All three were right; but all three were wrong because they did not understand the totality of the animal. If we desire a true Word, we must have the inspired Words of God.

The influence of inspiration upon the pen of a writer means that we can learn of spiritual truths even from an unlearned person. When Moses penned the account of creation I would doubt that he understood all that this entailed. He simply wrote what God led him to write. Daniel could not understand all that he wrote. Yet, Daniel wrote that which the Spirit led him to write.

God was in control of His Own Inspiration. Each of the writers wrote that which God wanted to be committed to the narrative. We have no logical, or spiritual, reason to doubt that He has exercised the same care and power in His Preservation of His Words.

If one does not accept the writings of the Scripture as inspired, we have some real problems with our doctrinal understanding. Unless we accept the concept of inspiration we are required to learn of spiritual truths, far beyond the understanding of the philosopher, from these unlearned writers. We ask of them what they are not able to produce.

Unless we accept the concept of the inspiration of the Scripture, we are reduced to searching those words from spiritual and religious concepts from the pen of superstitious writers who were less versed in religious concepts than are even ourselves in this day. Without the bedrock of inspired Scripture we are left with an evolving "religious experience." If that concept of religion has "evolved" over time, the earlier writers would not be able to teach their more "evolved" counterparts in our time.

Since the Bible does declare that It is the Words of God, this means that the writers - were they honest and not intending to delude others, were themselves deluded. Unless the concept of inspiration is real, those early writers who claimed to be giving forth the Words that God had directed them to write, are not of sound mind. They are, to borrow a phrase from the 60's, "really tripping."

The story is told of a man who was sent to an insane asylum for his delusion that he was Jesus Christ. As the man went into the ward he was met by another patient. The second patient said, "Who are you?" The first replied, "I am Jesus Christ of Nazareth." The second patient said, "Son!"

Do you see the problem associated with accepting spiritual leading from a Book which claims to be the Words of God? If not really written under the inspiration of God, then this Book was written by charlatans and crooks. Surely we can not consider these are moral guides.

If those same writers really believed that they were writing the Words of God, and were not, we have the problem that they are insane. Again, we cannot consider these are moral guides.

The bottom line is, if the Words of the Scripture were not inspired of God, we are attempting to find truth in a volume which was penned by false, lying and / or writers who could not understand the concept of spiritual truth for themselves. How much less could they be trusted as guides into the eternal realms.

The comforting fact is that we have a Word which shows Itself to be a record of the Words of God. In our next session we will look at that very fact.

POSITION OF CHURCHES (Continued)

Ho, Ho, Ho! Merry Christmas! How do I know that it is Christmas, today? Well, all I have to do is look at the calendar. There it is! December 25^th, Christmas Day. If I fail to see the calendar all I really have to do is listen for the grandkids to come running in. They’ll let me know.

How do I know that the Bible is the Word of God? Well, the witness of the Spirit tells me that this is so. Beyond this, the Bible, Itself, tells me that this is so. Although Church councils may also tell me this is so, they are only recognizing the fact. They are not, in themselves, evidences of the fact.

Smyth (How We Got the Bible) says, "The claims of the Bible plus the contents of the Bible equal a convincing case for the Bible as the inspired Word of God."

It may, I know, seem to be somewhat a circular reasoning to say that the Bible’s claims are an evidence that It is the Words of God. But, consider if the Bible had made no such claim for Itself. We would have no reason to suppose that such were the case. You may look at me an attempt to guess my age. Until I say that I am sixty one years of age, you may not consider that particular age as that of myself. My saying that this is so gives you an indication of how old I am. You may not agree. You may say, "You sure look older." Or, you may say, "You act less mature than that." But, until I said it was so, you might not consider my age to be what it is.

In like manner, some will disagree that the Bible contains the Words of God. Some may argue that the Bible only contains the Words of God. Some may say, more accurately I would argue, that every single word, syllable and letter of the Bible is inspired of God. But, unless the Bible had first made that case about Itself, we would be only engaging in conjecture of what we might believe about The Book.

The Bible claims to contain the Words of God. More importantly, the contents of the Bible will back that claim. The Bible gives unique insights in human nature and holy living that could not have been conceived by the mind of man.

The Bible gives an accurate representation of the characters contained within Its pages. David is shown to be a man of unique devotion to God and yet he, himself, falls into grievous error.

Noah is rightly considered one of the greatest men of the history of the Bible. When all about him were falling into violence and forgetting the rule of God in their hearts, Noah was considered a righteous man. When the rest of the world perished in the Judgement of the Flood, Noah and his family were saved by the Ark of God.

Yet, we read of Noah, in Genesis 9:20-25, that he fell into drunkenness. Noah was a righteous man. He was not a perfect man and the Bible informs us of his failings even as we are informed of his faith.

We read in the pages of Scripture of Peter. Here was a man who was not only willing to fight for Jesus, he began to do so against the soldiers who came to arrest Jesus in the Garden. (John 18:10) And then, just a few hours later (John 18:27) Peter could not even bring himself to speak the words that he even knew Jesus.

The Bible speaks of the brashness and courage of Peter even as the Bible speaks of his cowardice.

This is not the picture given of the "heros" of other religious works. Their heros are supermen. They are single minded. They are either quick to fight, or quick to run. The Bible gives us the picture of their heroism even as the Bible shows their human weaknesses.

The Bible also gives unique insights into the great worth of humanity. We are not treated, as we are in atheistic evolution, as a mere chance product of chemical action. Our dignity as human beings does not come from our great achievements. We are shown a dignity that is conferred upon the face of man by the Creator of man.

In the Bible we are shown that man is a special creation of the Creator. We were not a simple chance byproduct of a random accident, we are a special creation which has the great dignity of being created in the likeness of the Founder and Sustainer of the Universe.

The Bible, even as it records the Glory and Majesty of God, gives out the unique story of the history of humanity. We are shown, within the pages of the Holy Book, that we are a loved creature of the Creator. We are not a "pet," such as one might have a greatly prized hunting dog. We are called into His presence with the unique ability to worship Him. We are given a salvation which allows us to commune with Him.

The Bible reminds us that we are so highly prized by the Creator that we are called unto a salvation which He initiated on our behalf. Beyond this, we are called as an important part of relating His message to the world at large. We are His special creation even as we are called to be His co-workers in spreading the message of salvation into the world.

John Calvin (Calvin’s Institutes) makes note that the churches accept the inspiration of the Scripture.

"When the church receives it [the Scripture], and gives it the stamp of her authority, she does not make that authentic which was otherwise doubtful or controverted, but, acknowledges it as the truth of God, she, as she is duty bound, shows her reverence by an unhesitated assent."

The acceptance of the Scripture by the churches does not make the Scripture authoritative. The churches, led by the Spirit moving upon the people of those churches, only agrees with God that the Scripture is true and of authority. Let us be very clear about this. No church council ever said, "This is the Word," and thus the Word was made Scripture.

We had a windstorm, again, a few days ago. My back yard is still littered with some very large branches. Those branches are not there because I say they are there. Those branches are there whether I accept the fact of their existence, or not. My opinion is not important as to the reality of the branches in my yard.

All I can do is point and say, "There they are."

It is the same with the Scripture. The various church councils did not decide what was Scripture and what was not. Those councils only verified, they pointed and observed that which God had already authenticated.

The churches accept the Scriptures as genuine by the Word of Jesus. This is especially so in the Old Testament to which He frequently appealed. This is also true of the New Testament which constantly appeals to His authority.

The churches accept the Scriptures as genuine by the pen and personalities of the apostles. The Books within The Book are not forgeries penned some two or three centuries after the fact. The Bible is literal history of, and by, actual persons. Second centuries "Church Fathers" appealed to these Words as the Words of God.

The churches accept the Scripture as genuine by the witness of the Holy Spirit. We have discussed this above. But, it is important to understand that the witness of the Spirit is the guiding influence upon what was Scripture and what was not. It was the Spirit, acting upon the persons who made up the churches, who both gave testimony to the truth of inspiration and served as custodians of those Words for future generations.

The churches also accept the Scriptures as genuine by the witness of that Word. When we are able to examine the lives that have been changed by the Power of the Words of God, we must be struck by this witness to the Truth of the Scriptures.

No one has ever been made worse in his spiritual life by an honest appeal to the Scripture. Although, many have been made worse by trying to use those Wonderful Words to toward ignoble and prideful ends.

The great unity of doctrine within the Scripture gives a witness to the authority which lies within. The Bible was written by over forty human instruments over fifteen hundred years. Yet, the doctrine of the Scripture remains true to the righteousness of God and the sinfulness of man.

The picture of God within the Scripture, from page to page and cover to cover, remains consistent. He is pictured as One God with One Message: Mankind is sinful and in need of help to overcome his sin. God is holy and loving. He stands ready to supply that help to mankind.

POSITION OF THE CHURCHES (Continued)

The appeal to the Scripture has been the standard for the churches and the Christians. In our day we do see a weakening of this position as the rational for almost all of the modern language English language versions is that God, either by human intervention or disinterest, had lost control of the preservation of His Words. The argument is that we have, by the blessing of the human minds of the modern textual critics, reconstructed "with near certainty" a close approximation of the originally inspired autographs.

The real problem with this view is that it leaves the churches with a less than perfect standard of faith and practice. If the Scripture be uncertain we must turn to man, or to historical church traditions, to define faith and practice.

Bancroft (Elemental Theology) gives the argument for a Scripture which can be trusted. He says, "By the canonicity of the Scriptures is meant that, according to certain and fixed standards, the books included in them are regarded as parts of a complete and Divine revelation..."

This means, of course, that the appeal to the Scripture is an appeal to a final revelation from God to man. Why is it considered a final revelation? The answer would be that the Scripture has reached the apex of its teaching about how man may relate to God. This is done through the Person of Jesus Christ. In Him we see the restoration of that which was lost in the Garden.

With this revelation of Christ we have seen the full circle of God’s interest in His Creation. At such a point it is consistent with reason and Scripture to consider the canon of Scripture to be complete. The pictures and shadows of the Old Testament types have found their completion in Jesus. There is no need, no purpose really, in further revelation from God. The Gospels have given us a picture of Him. The Epistles have given us the standards of instruction in His doctrine.

I Corinthians 13:10 states, "But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away." We have seen this happen in relation to the perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ as opposed to the "shadow and type" sacrificial system of the Old Testament. To allege that a later revelation would be possible, beyond that which spoke of Jesus from the apostles, is to allege that the sacrifice of Jesus was incomplete or not perfect. It is to argue that there is something better than Christ. Such cannot be the case.

In speaking of the inspiration of the Scripture we are speaking of a full revelation from God to man. We have seen, in His Words to us, all that He wishes us to know and all that we need to understand. He has already given us revelation as to salvation and the Christian life. To seek anything further is to move into the occult. To move into the occult is to move away from God. It is to consider Him as not having told the Story in full. Such is to question His goodness.

Since the purpose of inspiration is to give to man the complete teaching which God has for us, such would also be to question His wisdom.

The Scripture is also the rule of faith for mankind. We are not bound by church councils and church covenants. We are bound by such only when they are fully in accordance with the Words of God. Any church council or covenant which is contrary to Scripture is false. We are duty bound, as Christians bought by the Blood of Jesus Christ, to turn from such and accept the Scripture in all of Its purity and power.

The Scripture is also the rule of life, and how to live it, for man. We are the direct creation of the Creator. As the Manufacturer of humanity God knows best how we are to live in this space of time and physicality. The Scripture gives us His rule for the betterment of our lives here on earth as well as the preparation for our lives in eternity.

The Scripture is a form of Love from God to mankind as It gives us these instructions and information.

A little tract from the Moody Bible Institute (Here We Stand) reminds us that "Since the Bible is the Word of God as it indeed claims to be, whenever it speaks and whatever subject, it speaks the truth. There it ought to be heeded and obeyed."

We accept the Scripture because It is worthy. I have a monopoly game at home. In it are thousands and thousands of dollars. They are not worthy to be used at the supermarket. Only the real money can be used to buy my weekly groceries.

Only the true Scripture is the "coin of the realm" for the sake of the life, and the eternal life, of any person on this earth. There are plenty of other faith traditions and systems. Only that which is contained in the Scripture is that which God has authorized and inspired. Only that is worthy of our complete submission to its guidance and trust.

We accept the Scripture because we are unworthy. We are creatures of sin. Yes, we are! In Adam the entire human race fell from the state of complete innocence and perfection. Only through Christ may we be accepted back into fellowship with God. We are not worthy to even work toward this condition. It is only the grace of God, shown in the complete sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which allows us to draw near to Him.

The inspired and preserved Scripture is His message of the Love that He has shown toward us.

We accept the Scripture because it is God’s Word. If God said it, that settles it. God’s Word is above our understanding. He has condescended to teach us of His glory, and His power, and His love in the words of His Book.

The Philadelphia Confession of Faith says that, "The authority of the holy Scripture ... Dependent not upon the testimony of any man or church but wholly upon ... God .... It is the word of God."

The 1891 edition of the Iowa Yearly Meeting of the Friends, Book of Discipline speaks of the primacy of the Scripture.

"It has ever been, and still is, the belief of the Society of Friends, that the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament were given by the inspiration of God; that, therefore, there can be no appeal from them to any other authority whatsoever..."

The 1972 Discipline of the Wesleyan Church says, "...whatsoever is not read therein [the Scripture], nor may be proved thereby, is not ... Required ... As an article of faith..."

The 1960 Constitution of the UPC in the USA makes two statements as to the Scripture.

Chapter 2, paragraph 8: "The Old and New Testament in Greek..., being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical..."

Chapter 2, paragraph 20: "The Supreme Judge, by whom all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture."

The book, "Major United Methodist Beliefs," says that, "The tree of Protestantism roots in the Bible. In that soil alone does it flourish... When we exalt it [the Bible], vital Christianity thrives."

In "Meet Us At the Cross," the Church of God, Anderson, Indiana, maintains their belief in the Scripture. "The Church of God movement has maintained a sure belief that the Bible is the Inspired Word of God. ...we believe that the Bible is the foundation for instruction in the Christian faith."

The book, "Doctrinal Beliefs of the Church of God - 7^th Day," affirms their trust in the Scripture. "The Holy Bible is the Divinely Inspired Word of God. No other writing is of such divine origin. The Bible is infallible in teaching, and it contains the complete revelation of the plan of salvation and the will of God for man. God’s Word is eternal."

The 1979 Directory of the American Evangelical Christian Churches agrees that the Scripture is the inspired Words of God. "...[In the] Articles of Faith: ...{We accept] the Bible as the written Word of God.

In our next session we will begin to look at the concept of the inspiration of the Old Testament.

There is a fallacy that the churches of Jesus are disconnected into many sects which are widely different one from another. They do differ in many places in emphasizing some doctrine over another, or some such thing. But, they are amazingly similar when it comes to the primary tenets of the faith. I would hope that this session has shown some of that similarity.