By Ryan Leasure
This article is part 5 in a nine-part series on how we got our Bible. Part 1 considered inspiration and inerrancy. Part 2 looked at the unfolding of the Old Testament. Part 3 examined the Old Testament canon and the Apocrypha. Part 4 considered the canonical attributes for New Testament books. This article will unpack how the early church received the New Testament canon.
Marcion (AD 85-160)
Before diving into the the corporate reception of the canon, it’s first necessary to say a brief word about Marcion. According to church historian Henry Chadwick, Marcion was “the most radical and to the church the most formidable of heretics.”[1] What was Marcion’s heresy? He promoted Gnosticism—the belief that the god who created the world was evil, and thus the OT was evil. This belief led Marcion to reject the entire OT and most parts of the NT which spoke positively of the OT.
Therefore, Marcion’s canon included a mutilated version of Luke which left out all positive references to the OT as well as any hints that Jesus might have actually been a physical human. Gnosticism, after all, taught that the physical world was evil. Jesus, then, only appeared to be human—a view known as Docetism.
The Church universally rejected Marcion. Not one church Father has anything remotely positive to say about him. In fact, after Marcion made a sizable donation to the church in Rome, they returned it to him after they learned of his heretical views.
When did the Church Receive the Canon?
Marcion’s so-called canon suggests that the church already had some kind of functional canon by the middle-part of the second century. Which raises a significant question: When did the Church receive the NT canon? One’s answer to this question depends largely on how they define the canon. Michael Kruger gives three definitions:[2]
Exclusive Canon — The church solidified the canonical boundaries in the fourth century.
Functional Canon — The core canonical texts were functioning authoritatively by the second century.
Ontological Canon — The texts were authoritative as soon the apostles finished writing them.
The rest of this post will focus mostly on the functional canon and a little on the exclusive canon. For more on the ontological canon, see the first post in this series on the inspiration of biblical texts. In that article, I draw attention to the fact that the biblical authors were aware that they were writing authoritative Scripture.
The Reception of the New Testament Canon
In the remaining space, I’m going to argue that the church recoginzed most of the NT as authoritative by the second century. The church later affirmed the fringes of the canon in the fourth century. To support this claim, I will consider four key points.
1. Statements by Church Fathers
Several statements from the church fathers suggest that they recognized certain texts as authoritative. Irenaeus (AD 180), for example, notes, “It is not possible that the gospels can be either more or fewer than the number they are. For since there are four zones of the world in which we live and four principle winds . . . [and] the cherubim, too were four-faced.”[3] While we may scratch our heads at Irenaeus’ logic, one thing is for certain: He believed that four and only four Gospels were authoritative.
Justin Martyr (AD 150) also recognized their authority when he mentioned that the church was reading these texts in corporate worship alongside the OT. He remarks, “And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together in one place, and the memoir of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits.”[4] No one questions whether the early church recognized the authority of the OT. The fact that they were reading NT texts alongside the OT suggests they believed both were Scripture.
Ignatius (AD 110) recognizes the apostles’ authority verses his own when he said, “I am not commanding you as Peter and Paul did. They were apostles, I am condemned.”[5] Ignatius was an influential church leader in the second century. But even he recognized that Peter and Paul’s writings were on a whole other level from his own.
As you peruse the early church fathers, you will find several quotes referencing the authority of the NT texts.
2. Appeals to Texts as Scripture
Not only do the early church fathers state that the New Testament texts were authoritative, they also appeal to them as divinely inspired Scripture. The Epistle of Barnabas (AD 130), for example, uses the formula “it is written” when it quotes from the Gospel of Matthew. It’s well-noted that the NT authors frequently employ this formula when they quote an OT text. The Epistle of Barnabas reads, “As it is written, ‘Many are called, but few are chosen.’”[6]
Polycarp (AD 110) makes an even more explicit reference. He notes, “As it is written in these Scriptures, ‘Be angry and do not sin and do not let the sun go down on your anger.”[7] Interestingly, Polycarp quotes two texts and refers to them both as “Scripture.” The first text was Psalm 4:5, and the second was Ephesians 4:26.
In fact, by the middle to end of the second century, a few well-known church fathers appeal to a core set of canonical books, indicating that they believed those books were in fact Scripture. Irenaeus appeals to the following books as Scripture:
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, and Revelation.[8]
Only Philemon, 2 Peter, 3 John, and Jude are missing.
Similarly, Clement of Alexandria appeals to the following books as Scripture:
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thesalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, 1 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, Jude, and Revelation.[9]
Only James, 2 Peter, and 3 John are missing.
Around AD 250, Origen gives us a complete canonical list in his homily on Joshua. Notice carefully all the books that he references:
But when our Lord Jesus Christ comes, whose arrival that prior son of Nun designated, he sends priests, his apostles, bearing “trumpets hammered thin,” the magnificent and heavenly instruction of proclamation. Matthew first sounded the priestly trumpet in his Gospel; Mark also; Luke and John each played their own priestly trumpets. Even Peter cries out with trumpets in two of his epistles; also James and Jude. In addition, John also sounds the trumpet through his epistles [and Revelation], and Luke, as he describes the Acts of the Apostles. And now that last one comes, the one who said, “I think God displays us apostles last,” and in fourteen of his epistles, thundering with trumpets, he casts down the walls of Jericho and all the devices of idolatry and dogmas of philosophers, all the way to the foundations.[10]
You’ll notice that Origen attributes fourteen letters to Paul instead of thirteen. The most likely explanation for this error is the common belief that Paul wrote the book of Hebrews.
3. Manuscript Evidence
One of the best indications that the NT books functioned authoritatively in the second and third century is the amount of extant manuscripts we have in our possession. As of right now, we have over sixty NT manuscripts from the second and third century. The Gospel of John has the most with eighteen. Matthew comes in second with twelve. By comparison, we have seventeen second and third century manuscripts of all the apocryphal texts combined. In other words, we have more manuscripts of John than all the apocryphal books put together. The most manuscripts for any apocryphal text is the Gospel of Thomas which has three.
The amount of extant manuscripts indicates which books the church used most often. John and Matthew were apparently the two most popular books in the early church based on the number of extant manuscripts in our possession. The fact that we have hardly any apocryphal manuscripts indicates that the early church didn’t have much use for them.
Also of note is the fact that all of the second and third century New Testament manuscripts are in a codex format (precursor to modern books). None are on a scroll. That said, the scroll was the most popular book form of the second and third century. Over time, as Christianity grew, codex became the dominant book form in the ancient world.
While none of the New Testament texts are on a scroll, apocryphal texts are. Furthermore, because the codex allowed the church to conveniently place several books into a single codex, we have several codices with multiple Gospels and Paul’s letters. P46, for example, is a collection of nine of Paul’s letters. P75 contains Luke and John. P45 is a four Gospel codex. We don’t have a single codex which combines canonical and apocryphal gospels. In other words, no manuscript has Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Thomas. The manuscripts tell us all we need to know about which books the early church thought were authoritative.
4. Canonical Lists
In 1740, Lodovico Antonio Muratori published a Latin list of NT books known as the Muratorian Fragment. This fragment contains an early canonical list that most trace back to the second century church in Rome. The canon includes the following books:
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, 1 John, 2 John, Jude, and Revelation.
Only Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, and 3 John are missing. This list, along with the lists from the early church fathers, indicates that the second century church recognized a core group of canonical books by the middle to late second century. Only a few fringe books are missing. As time progressed, the church eventually affirmed the twenty-seven book canon that we have today.
Around AD 320, church historian Eusebius gave a canonical list that he subdivided into four categories:[11]
Recognized Books: Eusebius remarks that these books were universally accepted.
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, 1 Peter, 1 John, and Revelation
Disputed Books: Eusebius remarked that these books were “disputed yet known by most.”
James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, and Jude
Spurious Books: Eusebius notes that these were books that the early church found helpful, but they weren’t Scripture.
Acts of Paul, Shepherd of Hermes, Revelation of Peter, Epistle of Barnabas, Didache, and Gospel of Hebrews
Heretical Books: Eusebius says these books have been universally rejected.
Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Thomas, Acts of Andrew, Acts of John, and Gospel of Matthias
Notice that between the recognized and disputed books which were “known by most,” the entire New Testament canon is present. Also worth noting is that Eusebius believed the heretical books were utterly repulsive. Consider his words:
we have felt compelled to give this catalogue in order that we might be able to know both these works and those that are cited by the heretics under the name of the apostles, including, for instance, such books as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias, or of any others besides them, and the Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles, which no one belonging to the succession of ecclesiastical writers has deemed worthy of mention in his writings. And further, the character of the style is at variance with apostolic usage, and both the thoughts and the purpose of the things that are related in them are so completely out of accord with true orthodoxy that they clearly show themselves to be the fictions of heretics. Wherefore they are not to be placed even among the rejected writings, but are all of them to be cast aside as absurd and impious.
In other words, these books didn’t “almost” make it into the canon. The canon didn’t come down to an arbitrary vote. The church rejected these books from a very early time due to their devilish nature.
Following Eusebius, Athanasius gave a complete canonical list with all twenty-seven books in AD 367. In AD 393 and 397, the Councils of Hippo and Carthage also affirmed the twenty-seven books in the canon.
Recognized Not Determined
In closing, I want to make an important point. The church did not grant authority to any NT text. It merely recognized which books were already authoritative in the church. As J. I. Packer helpfully states, “The Church no more gave us the New Testament canon than Sir Isaac Newton gave us the force of gravity. God gave us gravity . . . Newton did not create gravity but recognized it.”
In the next post, we will transition to the preservation of the NT text. Specifically, we will take a look at the manuscript tradition and textual criticism.
References
[1] Henry Chadwick, The Early Church, 39.
[2] Michael Kruger, The Question of Canon, 29-46.
[3] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.11.8.
[4] Justin Martyr, First Apology, 67.3.
[5] Ignatius, Romans. 4:4.
[6] Epistle of Barnabas 4.14.
[7] Polycarp, Philippians, 12.1.
[8] Michael Kruger, Canon Revisited, 228.
[9] Michael Kruger, The Question of Canon, 168.
[10] Origen, Homily on Joshua 7.1.
[11] Eusebius, Church History, 3.25.1-7.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Why We Know the New Testament Writers Told the Truth by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3 and Mp4) Jesus, You and the Essentials of
Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD) Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide
Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels by J. Warner Wallace (Book)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Leasure holds a Master of Arts from Furman University and a Masters of Divinity from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Currently, he’s a Doctor of Ministry candidate at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He also serves as a pastor at Grace Bible Church in Moore, SC
Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3KTGEHP
Castrate Children? The President says “yes”!
PodcastPresident Biden said this week that all trans people are made in the image of God. He’s absolutely right. Everyone is. But the President then ignored the end of the verse: “God made them male and female”.
The President then went on to affirm “gender-affirming care” FOR CHILDREN that includes hormones, puberty blockers, chemical castration drugs, “top” surgeries — elective mastectomies and breasts enhancements — and “bottom” surgeries — removal of genitals. Again, FOR CHILDREN! Frank has a lot to say about this madness and the religion of sexual license.
Frank also reveals that he spoke to 45 Christians living in Ukraine via Zoom this week. He gives an eyewitness report from one of them living in the city of Donetsk, Ukraine— right in the path of the Russian attack. Are our American news reports true? How many civilians are being killed? By who? Are there really Nazis in Ukraine? Is war justified?
Links referenced in the show:
If you would like to submit a question to be answered on the show, please email your question to Hello@Crossexamined.org.
Subscribe on Apple Podcast: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast Rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Google Play: https://cutt.ly/0E2eua9
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher
¿Son los cristianos los nuevos extremistas? Sí, y está bien
EspañolBy Natasha Crain
My blog and podcast have been on hiatus as I finish writing my new book, Faithfully Different: Regaining Biblical Clarity in a Secular Culture.
Faithfully Different is about the fact that Christians with a biblical worldview are a minority in North America these days and how the secular worldview around us is putting increasing pressure on what we believe, how we think, and how we live. I wrote it to help Christians gain greater clarity in understanding the fundamental differences between the secular and biblical worldviews, both to strengthen our faith and our ability to be salt and light to others. I’m so excited to share it with you! Faithfully Different comes out in February and I’ll be announcing pre-order details here in the coming weeks.
As you read this, you may be wondering if Christians are really a “minority” in America. I talk about this at length in the first chapter, but here’s the bottom line. About 65 percent of Americans self-identify as Christians—certainly not a minority. But when researchers ask specific questions about beliefs and behaviors, about 10 percent of Americans have what would be considered a “biblical worldview” (they hold core beliefs consistent with the historic Christian faith and display consistent behavior). Furthermore, researchers have found that those who hold a biblical worldview are not only a minority in America, they are also a minority in the church .
Now, there are many minority groups that are not relevant to people. I’m sure there are a few who, for example, eat pickles for breakfast every morning. Nobody cares . But it’s clear to Christians who have a biblical worldview that secular culture does care about our existence… because it hates everything we stand for.
In a very real sense, we are increasingly seen as a small, extremist faction of society.
Understanding Christian “Extremism”
Read or listen to any popular media outlet that talks about “conservative Christians” and you will immediately know by the tone of that term that it is not being used as a neutral description. It is now offensive and is accompanied by a shaking of the head and eyes among the supposedly more enlightened culture. (Note that I am not necessarily talking about conservatives in a political sense; in secular usage “conservative” is a generic label referring to Christians who disagree with popular secular views. A political correlation is common, but it is not exclusively that.)
The implication is that we are those people — the rebels who don’t go along with the rest of society in the direction it wants to go. We are seen as an obstacle to what has been culturally defined as progress because of how different our visions are from the popular secular mainstream of today.
The result is that secularists now view us with varying degrees of indignation. Strange as it may sound to many Christians, we are the new extremists —a minority group whose views are regarded as 1) fundamentally different from the “average” views of secular culture and 2) troubling to the rest of society.
When you sense that culture views us this way, it can seem pretty bizarre. After all, Christianity has been the most influential religion in North America for the past 400 years, but now it’s extremist (and worrying) to believe that the Bible is the Word of God?
While there is no reason to agree with secularists about how troubling our views are, there is every reason to agree that our worldview is extremely different from the dominant secular worldview in the culture today. We are certainly “extreme” in that sense—and we should gladly accept that fact if we fully understand the nature of the biblical worldview.
Specifically, we are extremists in three main areas.
First of all, we are extremists in our source of authority.
The fundamental difference between those with a biblical worldview and those with a secular one is the source of authority. Each person, as part of their worldview, has an ultimate authority that they believe speaks the truth when it speaks about the world and the right way to act in it. For Christians with a biblical worldview, that source of authority is God, and we believe that He has revealed these truths in the Bible.
In secularism, the source of a person’s authority is one’s own self . Secularism is not what is left when you simply strip away what are known as a person’s religious beliefs from their worldview. When you throw away the authority of God, you are not left without authority—you are left with authority over yourself .
When for the vast majority the authority for truth is themselves, it should not be surprising that Christians come to very different conclusions about the nature of reality than the culture will arrive at. Even the phrase “The Bible says…” with the assumption that what follows is objective truth that supersedes personal opinion is extreme compared to the current average view where the individual rules supreme.
And for those who regard the Bible as merely the written record of man’s thoughts about God (and nothing more), such extremism is troubling . How can Christians be compelled to follow new social norms if they do not see truth as subject to change? With fellow secularists whose feelings determine what is truth, society can “progress” through the push and pull of shifting popular consensus. But what about Christians who believe they have an authority that does not change over time? That is an infuriating barrier that infuriates secularists.
Secondly, we are extremists in our understanding of morality.
From the first point it follows that Christians with a biblical worldview are going to have great differences with secularists when it comes to morality.
For those whose authority is God and who believe that He has revealed Himself and made His will known in the Bible, the Bible will have the final say in what is right or wrong… no matter what we think, no matter what anyone thinks, and no matter what society thinks. From a secular perspective, what an obstinate view !
When your authority is yourself, there is no objective basis for defining morality for all people. In essence, each person is his or her own God. What is right or wrong does not depend on what someone else has said—whether God or not—it depends on what you have said.
But wait! Wouldn’t that imply that secularists should accept the Christian perspective on morality as another valid perspective?
Absolutely.
But they don’t. And that’s where secularists fail to live consistently with their own self-authority-based worldview.
If they were consistent, they would say this: “Hey, we understand that your Christian perspective is just as valid as anyone else’s because each individual is his or her own authority and there is no objective basis for claiming that something must be right or wrong for all people. But some of us have a (fill in the blank) view about (fill in the blank), and we want to try to convince you to change your mind! But if you don’t want to change, that’s okay because everyone’s perspective is just as valid. Have a nice day.”
But instead, they say this : “The (fill in the blank) view about (fill in the blank) is the objectively correct perspective for all people, and if you disagree, you are wrong …and you are evil .”
Without an objective basis for morality that comes from a moral legislator higher than humans, the closest thing secularists can come to a moral standard that applies to all people is popular consensus . That is why it is so important for secular culture to continually push its perspectives on morality into every possible channel—education, media, entertainment, business, and so on. The more people buy into a particular moral perspective, the more popular consensus is achieved, and the more secularists have a new standard for saying what is right.
But again, Christians with a biblical worldview are not bound by such changes. No matter how popular a new idea of morality is, if it conflicts with what Christians believe God himself has said, the popular consensus will not become our new standard. And that “extreme” perspective relative to the average culture is immensely frustrating to nonbelievers.
Third, we are extremists for believing that judgment can be objectively valid.
This point follows from the previous two. Because Christians view God and His Word as the source of authority for their lives, and because their views on morality are a consequence of those beliefs, Christians believe that judgment on matters of truth can be objectively valid—and not merely an opinion.
In Faithfully Different, I describe the tenets of the secular worldview this way: Feelings are the primary guide, happiness is the primary goal, judging is the primary sin, and God is the primary imagination. Judging is the greatest sin in secularism because when feelings are your guide and happiness is your goal, no one has the authority or right to tell you what only you can know (how you feel and what makes you happiest). In the self-authority worldview, it is absurd and insulting for someone else to come and observe another person’s life journey and claim to know more than that person how they should or should not live.
But that implies that there is no God who has provided a reliable and authoritative source of information.
From a biblical worldview, God has granted that in the Bible. And if the God of the universe has told us what is true about reality, it is not absurd or offensive to share what He has said—it is literally the only reasonable thing to do since the God who created everything surely knows more than any human.
Jesus never said the world would understand us. To a large extent, this is to be expected from secular cultural perspectives. What concerns me most is when Christians fail to understand how extremely different the biblical worldview must be from the secular one. In many ways, secularists who think those with a biblical worldview are extremists relative to the average society understand this more than self-proclaimed Christians who see only minimal differences.
When we truly have a biblical worldview, we should understand that we are indeed “extremists” for today’s culture…and accept it. It’s not only okay to be extremist in this, it’s beautiful—because it’s what God Himself calls us to be.
Recommended resources in Spanish:
Stealing from God ( Paperback ), ( Teacher Study Guide ), and ( Student Study Guide ) by Dr. Frank Turek
Why I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist ( Complete DVD Series ), ( Teacher’s Workbook ), and ( Student’s Handbook ) by Dr. Frank Turek
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Natasha Crain is a blogger, author, and national speaker who is passionate about equipping Christian parents to raise their children with an understanding of how to make a case and defend their faith in the midst of an increasingly secular world. She is the author of two parenting apologetics books: Talking with Your Kids about God (2017) and Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side (2016). Natasha holds an MBA in marketing and statistics from UCLA and is certified in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. She has worked as a marketing executive and adjunct professor and lives in Southern California with her husband and three children.
Original Blog: https://bit.ly/3iTHIzc
Translated by Gustavo Camarillo
Edited by Elenita Romero
The Bible Story You Are In
PodcastWhat do you think about when you hear the word “God”? Too many of us have false knowledge about God. We think God loves us more if we obey Him and less if we don’t. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, there is a story in the Bible— a story you are actually in— that just could revolutionize your understanding of God and His grace. Frank unpacks that story in this episode. Get ready to look at the prodigal son passage and God Himself in a new light.
If you would like to submit a question to be answered on the show, please email your question to Hello@Crossexamined.org.
Subscribe on Apple Podcast: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast Rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Google Play: https://cutt.ly/0E2eua9
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher
Silencing of the Lambs | with Dr. Michael Brown
PodcastAre you FOR a free and respectful debate about controversial issues?
Are you FOR the freedom to have your own political opinions without fear of losing your job?
Are you FOR respecting people and their positions rather than calling them names or censoring them?
Are you FOR the freedom to speak the truth to love even those who disagree with you?
Are you FOR forgiveness rather than being executed by cancel culture?
Are you FOR protecting women and children from sexual predators?
Are you FOR protecting the innocence of young children regarding sex?
Are you FOR parents having the right to teach their children their values?
Are you FOR parents having a say in what their kids are taught in school?
Are you FOR the ability to say no to a government that wants to mutilate and sterilize your children without your consent?
Are you FOR being able to cite the scientific evidence that life begins at conception?
Are you FOR being able to cite the scientific evidence that there are only two genders?
Are you FOR people having the right to get counseling for any issue they are struggling with?
Are you FOR the freedom to live out your religious beliefs?
Are you FOR your ability to preach the Gospel?
Are you FOR the freedom to live not by lies but by the truth?
If you are FOR any or all of these things, then listen to this show! Dr. Michael Brown, author of ‘Silencing of the Lambs‘ joins Frank to give us practical ways to advance freedom and Jesus in a culture that wants to cancel you.
If you would like to submit a question to be answered on the show, please email your question to Hello@Crossexamined.org.
Subscribe on Apple Podcast: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast Rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Google Play: https://cutt.ly/0E2eua9
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher
¿Todos los razonamientos son razonamientos circulares?
EspañolBy David Pallman
Circular reasoning is generally understood to be a fallacy. The reason is that circular arguments assume what they purport to prove. At least one of the premises of a circular argument depends on the truth of the conclusion, which makes the argument lose all justificatory force. For in order to accept the premise in question, one would have to already believe the conclusion. But if one already believes the conclusion, one does not need the argument, and if one does not believe the conclusion, the argument will not provide any basis for belief.
Despite the apparent obviousness of what I have just said, the claim that circular reasoning is, in some cases, acceptable and—worse still—ultimately inevitable remains surprisingly popular. This claim is common among Christian apologists known as presuppositionalists (though it is by no means limited to them). It is not my purpose here to criticize circular reasoning in general or to offer a noncircular alternative, though I have done so elsewhere. [1] My purpose here is to criticize a popular argument that purports to show that circular reasoning is inevitable.
The argument is often formulated as follows: “You must use reason to prove reason.” The thrust of the argument seems to be that since you cannot prove reason apart from reason, circularity is simply inescapable. [2] While I don’t encounter this argument much in the academic literature (at least not in this form), it is quite popular among presuppositionalists on the Internet. And while I generally prefer to discuss academic issues, the universality of this argument coupled with the fact that I am not aware of any direct interaction with it motivates me to write this article in response. [3]
In this article, I propose to briefly explain my motivation for taking up this argument. I will then attempt to disambiguate the argument and clarify both what it means and how it might be responded to. After disambiguating the argument, I will argue that it either assumes a theory of epistemic justification that can be rejected, or it fails to recognize an important distinction between two kinds of use. In either case, circular reasoning can be avoided.
Raising the stakes
After all, why should we care about argument? Is it really a problem if all justification is, in the end, circular? Or perhaps we shouldn’t even try to justify the reliability of reasoning. Maybe it’s simply a fundamental assumption of all philosophical inquiry that needs no justification at all.
It would be an understatement to say that many philosophers are content to say that belief in the reliability of reason can be justified only in a circular fashion. [4] Others, however, take the essential reliability of reason to be a fundamental principle incapable of justification and in need of no justification. But I have never found such answers satisfactory. I have never been content to suppose that I must demand justification for my beliefs down to the most basic level, but then give free rein to fundamental beliefs. That move seems entirely arbitrary and even incoherent. If our most fundamental beliefs are unjustified, then I take this to imply that all beliefs that depend on them for justification are equally unjustified. I suspect that many readers feel the same way.
But this conviction forces those who hold it to confront the original argument. For if there is no non-circular means of justifying core beliefs, then we may well have to face the conclusion that none of our beliefs are justified. For those who wish to avoid such a pessimistic conclusion, there is a strong motivation to address the original argument.
Clarifying the issue
Having provided some motivation, let us move on to assess the merits of the argument. Roughly speaking, it is the claim that reason should be used to justify reasoning. Put like that, the claim is quite incoherent. Reasoning is a deliberative cognitive process. It is not a proposition. It is not something that can be true or false. As such, reasoning itself does not need justification, since it is an action and not a belief. Imagine how absurd it would be to require justification for walking, or driving, or swimming. These activities do not need justification precisely because they are activities and not propositions. Once we understand that only propositions require justification because of their possibility of being false, it becomes clear that the act of reasoning does not need justification.
Sometimes the argument is phrased as a question: How do you know your reasoning is valid? But put like that, the argument is guilty of a category mistake. Validity is not a property of reasoning, but a property of arguments. [5] Saying that one’s reasoning is valid makes as little sense as saying that one’s driving is valid. Validity simply does not apply to activities.
But it may be objected that I have missed the point. After all, I am seizing on very poorly worded versions of the argument. And that is, of course, quite true. As I have noted before, this argument is not as prominent among academics as it is among those on the Internet. But I think that addressing these confused versions of the argument is an important task because it helps us clarify what is and is not at issue. It also forces those who use these problematic formulations of the argument to be more precise. Finally, pointing out the incoherence of these simplistic formulations of the argument can also serve to rob them of their rhetorical force.
Strengthening the Argument
So let me try to reconstruct a more sensible version of the argument. It seems to me that when someone says that we should use reason to justify reasoning, they mean that one should use one’s ability to reason to defend the proposition that reasoning is reliable. One should, in effect, assume that one’s ability to reason is reliable. This is certainly a much stronger argument. But to answer it, we must look for even further clarification.
Before we move on to respond to the strong version of the argument, we must ask what the phrase “reason is reliable” means. Taken literally, it means that the cognitive process of reasoning itself somehow produces justification for beliefs in virtue of its reliability. Thus, the argument says that one must assume that reasoning produces justification for beliefs by virtue of being reliable in order to conclude that reasoning produces justification for beliefs by virtue of being reliable.
Reliability vs. Evidentialism
So construed, the argument starts from a reliabilist epistemology. Reliabilism is a theory of epistemic justification according to which beliefs are justified if they have been produced by a reliable process. If this is what the proponent of the argument claims, then we can happily agree with him. It is not at all controversial that reliabilism is guilty of epistemic circularity. This is a well-known fact and is admitted by both reliabilists and critics of reliabilism.
However, it should be noted that if this is what the argument is trying to establish, then it assumes reliabilism and arrives at the incontrovertible conclusion that reliabilism leads to circularity. Not all philosophers are reliabilists, however. The main contender for reliabilism is so-called evidentialism. According to evidentialism, the justification any subject has for a belief is always relative to the evidence that subject possesses for that belief. [6] Evidentialism looks for justification in evidence – not in reliable processes. Thus, the argument considered above simply will not work against evidentialism because it assumes a theory of justification that the evidentialist rejects. [7] As such, one need only reject reliabilism for the argument not to establish that circularity is inevitable.
Functional Use vs. Justification Use
However, evidentialists still use reason to arrive at justified beliefs. Does this indicate that there is still some circularity on the evidentialist’s part? To answer this question, we need to be clear about what is meant by the use of reason. There are two very different ways in which we use things to justify our beliefs. We use things in a justificatory sense , and we also use things in a functional sense . Something is used in a justificatory sense when it is offered as a rational justification for a belief. Something is used in a functional sense when it is employed as a tool in the process of offering a rational justification. Fundamentally, nothing about a functional use contributes to the rational justification of a belief. It is simply a means to help a subject see that justification for what it is. The upshot is that the functional use does not even have the potential to be circular because circularity can only apply to justification.
We can see the distinction most clearly by way of an illustration. Suppose that I am debating with a friend about the existence of pencils. I am trying to convince him that pencils really exist. Suppose further that this debate is conducted via letters. In my attempt to convince my friend that pencils are real, I offer him numerous syllogistic arguments in support of the existence of pencils. Suppose that I use a pencil to write these arguments to him. In this case, it would be quite correct to say that I used a pencil to justify my belief in the existence of pencils. But the use was entirely functional. At no point did I use the proposition that pencils exist as a premise in an argument concluding that pencils exist. The premises of my arguments are the ones I use to justify my belief in pencils. Therefore, the justification for my belief in pencils is not circular, even though I used a pencil to justify the belief. This is because the use of the pencil was functional and not justificatory.
This illustration is quite analogous to what I have in mind when I say that evidentialists “use reason” to justify their beliefs. While it is true that we must think critically—we must reason—to justify our beliefs, we do not use reason as the rational basis for any of our beliefs. Evidence provides the justification for our beliefs, and reason is only the process of evaluating it. At no point does the process of reasoning itself justify a belief. Reasoning without evidence to reason with gets us nowhere. Reason is not some mystical ability that leads us to truth on its own. Reason requires facts to work with. It is simply a necessary means to arrive at justified beliefs. On the critical view, since we do not attribute justification to the process of reasoning itself, our use of it is not justificatory. It is functional. As such, our use of reason when seeking to justify our beliefs is not circular.
Summary and Conclusion
In this article, I have assessed the claim that epistemic circularity is inevitable, since one must, in fact, use reason to justify one’s beliefs about the truth-seeking nature of reasoning. I have determined that the argument is often unclearly and incoherently framed. When made intelligible, it assumes epistemic reliabilism and thus has no force against evidentialism. Any attempt to press the argument against evidentialism will raise the issue against evidentialism. Furthermore, attempts to modify it to meet evidentialism on the grounds that evidentialists “use reason” fail to recognize the distinction between functional and justificatory use. Since evidentialists only “use reason” in a functional sense, they are not guilty of epistemic circularity.
It has not been my purpose here to evaluate all the arguments for epistemic circularity or to offer a detailed exposition of a non-circular theory of knowledge. Others more able than I have done so elsewhere. [8] My purpose has been minimal. I have simply attempted to show that a single popular argument for the inescapability of circular reasoning fails as long as evidentialism is a viable option.
Grades
[1] See my video “Internalism Versus Externalism” available here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxOg5zKUYmU&t=12s
[2] For a set of arguments along these lines, see Sye Ten Bruggencate’s video “How To Answer The Fool (full film)” available here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQKjUzotw_Y&vl=en&t=329
[3] In particular, conversations with Seth Bloomsburg and Tyler Vela convinced me of the need for this article.
[4] Examples include William Alston, Alvin Plantinga, Michael Bergmann, and Andrew Moon.
[5] We certainly sometimes talk about valid and invalid reasoning. But this kind of language does not refer to cognitive processes, but to the validity of the logical inferences that follow from reasoning.
[6] Earl Conee and Richard Feldman, Evidentialism, Oxford University Press, 2004, p. 83
[7] See Berit Brogaard, “Phenomenal Dogmatism, Seeming Evidentialism and Inferential Justification”, in Believing in Accordance with the Evidence, Springer International Publishing, 2018, Kevin McCain editor, Pg. 55
[8] Some examples are Richard Fumerton, Metaepistemology and Skepticism, Rowman & Littlefield, 1995; Timothy McGrew and Lydia McGrew, Internalism and Epistemology, Routledge, 2007; Paul K. Moser, Knowledge and Evidence, Cambridge University Press, 1989; Brie Gertler, Self-Knowledge, Routledge, 2011
Recommended resources in Spanish:
Stealing from God ( Paperback ), ( Teacher Study Guide ), and ( Student Study Guide ) by Dr. Frank Turek
Why I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist ( Complete DVD Series ), ( Teacher’s Workbook ), and ( Student’s Handbook ) by Dr. Frank Turek
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
David Pallmann is a student at Trinity College of the Bible and Theological Seminary. He is also a member of the Society of Evangelical Arminians and runs the YouTube apologetics ministry Faith Because of Reason.
Original Blog Source : https://bit.ly/3KPtewf
Translated by Jennifer Chavez
Edited by Elenita Romero
How We Got Our Bible: New Testament Canonical Reception
4. Is the NT True?, Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Ryan Leasure
This article is part 5 in a nine-part series on how we got our Bible. Part 1 considered inspiration and inerrancy. Part 2 looked at the unfolding of the Old Testament. Part 3 examined the Old Testament canon and the Apocrypha. Part 4 considered the canonical attributes for New Testament books. This article will unpack how the early church received the New Testament canon.
Marcion (AD 85-160)
Before diving into the the corporate reception of the canon, it’s first necessary to say a brief word about Marcion. According to church historian Henry Chadwick, Marcion was “the most radical and to the church the most formidable of heretics.”[1] What was Marcion’s heresy? He promoted Gnosticism—the belief that the god who created the world was evil, and thus the OT was evil. This belief led Marcion to reject the entire OT and most parts of the NT which spoke positively of the OT.
Therefore, Marcion’s canon included a mutilated version of Luke which left out all positive references to the OT as well as any hints that Jesus might have actually been a physical human. Gnosticism, after all, taught that the physical world was evil. Jesus, then, only appeared to be human—a view known as Docetism.
The Church universally rejected Marcion. Not one church Father has anything remotely positive to say about him. In fact, after Marcion made a sizable donation to the church in Rome, they returned it to him after they learned of his heretical views.
When did the Church Receive the Canon?
Marcion’s so-called canon suggests that the church already had some kind of functional canon by the middle-part of the second century. Which raises a significant question: When did the Church receive the NT canon? One’s answer to this question depends largely on how they define the canon. Michael Kruger gives three definitions:[2]
Exclusive Canon — The church solidified the canonical boundaries in the fourth century.
Functional Canon — The core canonical texts were functioning authoritatively by the second century.
Ontological Canon — The texts were authoritative as soon the apostles finished writing them.
The rest of this post will focus mostly on the functional canon and a little on the exclusive canon. For more on the ontological canon, see the first post in this series on the inspiration of biblical texts. In that article, I draw attention to the fact that the biblical authors were aware that they were writing authoritative Scripture.
The Reception of the New Testament Canon
In the remaining space, I’m going to argue that the church recoginzed most of the NT as authoritative by the second century. The church later affirmed the fringes of the canon in the fourth century. To support this claim, I will consider four key points.
1. Statements by Church Fathers
Several statements from the church fathers suggest that they recognized certain texts as authoritative. Irenaeus (AD 180), for example, notes, “It is not possible that the gospels can be either more or fewer than the number they are. For since there are four zones of the world in which we live and four principle winds . . . [and] the cherubim, too were four-faced.”[3] While we may scratch our heads at Irenaeus’ logic, one thing is for certain: He believed that four and only four Gospels were authoritative.
Justin Martyr (AD 150) also recognized their authority when he mentioned that the church was reading these texts in corporate worship alongside the OT. He remarks, “And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together in one place, and the memoir of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits.”[4] No one questions whether the early church recognized the authority of the OT. The fact that they were reading NT texts alongside the OT suggests they believed both were Scripture.
Ignatius (AD 110) recognizes the apostles’ authority verses his own when he said, “I am not commanding you as Peter and Paul did. They were apostles, I am condemned.”[5] Ignatius was an influential church leader in the second century. But even he recognized that Peter and Paul’s writings were on a whole other level from his own.
As you peruse the early church fathers, you will find several quotes referencing the authority of the NT texts.
2. Appeals to Texts as Scripture
Not only do the early church fathers state that the New Testament texts were authoritative, they also appeal to them as divinely inspired Scripture. The Epistle of Barnabas (AD 130), for example, uses the formula “it is written” when it quotes from the Gospel of Matthew. It’s well-noted that the NT authors frequently employ this formula when they quote an OT text. The Epistle of Barnabas reads, “As it is written, ‘Many are called, but few are chosen.’”[6]
Polycarp (AD 110) makes an even more explicit reference. He notes, “As it is written in these Scriptures, ‘Be angry and do not sin and do not let the sun go down on your anger.”[7] Interestingly, Polycarp quotes two texts and refers to them both as “Scripture.” The first text was Psalm 4:5, and the second was Ephesians 4:26.
In fact, by the middle to end of the second century, a few well-known church fathers appeal to a core set of canonical books, indicating that they believed those books were in fact Scripture. Irenaeus appeals to the following books as Scripture:
Only Philemon, 2 Peter, 3 John, and Jude are missing.
Similarly, Clement of Alexandria appeals to the following books as Scripture:
Only James, 2 Peter, and 3 John are missing.
Around AD 250, Origen gives us a complete canonical list in his homily on Joshua. Notice carefully all the books that he references:
You’ll notice that Origen attributes fourteen letters to Paul instead of thirteen. The most likely explanation for this error is the common belief that Paul wrote the book of Hebrews.
3. Manuscript Evidence
One of the best indications that the NT books functioned authoritatively in the second and third century is the amount of extant manuscripts we have in our possession. As of right now, we have over sixty NT manuscripts from the second and third century. The Gospel of John has the most with eighteen. Matthew comes in second with twelve. By comparison, we have seventeen second and third century manuscripts of all the apocryphal texts combined. In other words, we have more manuscripts of John than all the apocryphal books put together. The most manuscripts for any apocryphal text is the Gospel of Thomas which has three.
The amount of extant manuscripts indicates which books the church used most often. John and Matthew were apparently the two most popular books in the early church based on the number of extant manuscripts in our possession. The fact that we have hardly any apocryphal manuscripts indicates that the early church didn’t have much use for them.
Also of note is the fact that all of the second and third century New Testament manuscripts are in a codex format (precursor to modern books). None are on a scroll. That said, the scroll was the most popular book form of the second and third century. Over time, as Christianity grew, codex became the dominant book form in the ancient world.
While none of the New Testament texts are on a scroll, apocryphal texts are. Furthermore, because the codex allowed the church to conveniently place several books into a single codex, we have several codices with multiple Gospels and Paul’s letters. P46, for example, is a collection of nine of Paul’s letters. P75 contains Luke and John. P45 is a four Gospel codex. We don’t have a single codex which combines canonical and apocryphal gospels. In other words, no manuscript has Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Thomas. The manuscripts tell us all we need to know about which books the early church thought were authoritative.
4. Canonical Lists
In 1740, Lodovico Antonio Muratori published a Latin list of NT books known as the Muratorian Fragment. This fragment contains an early canonical list that most trace back to the second century church in Rome. The canon includes the following books:
Only Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, and 3 John are missing. This list, along with the lists from the early church fathers, indicates that the second century church recognized a core group of canonical books by the middle to late second century. Only a few fringe books are missing. As time progressed, the church eventually affirmed the twenty-seven book canon that we have today.
Around AD 320, church historian Eusebius gave a canonical list that he subdivided into four categories:[11]
Recognized Books: Eusebius remarks that these books were universally accepted.
Disputed Books: Eusebius remarked that these books were “disputed yet known by most.”
Spurious Books: Eusebius notes that these were books that the early church found helpful, but they weren’t Scripture.
Heretical Books: Eusebius says these books have been universally rejected.
Notice that between the recognized and disputed books which were “known by most,” the entire New Testament canon is present. Also worth noting is that Eusebius believed the heretical books were utterly repulsive. Consider his words:
In other words, these books didn’t “almost” make it into the canon. The canon didn’t come down to an arbitrary vote. The church rejected these books from a very early time due to their devilish nature.
Following Eusebius, Athanasius gave a complete canonical list with all twenty-seven books in AD 367. In AD 393 and 397, the Councils of Hippo and Carthage also affirmed the twenty-seven books in the canon.
Recognized Not Determined
In closing, I want to make an important point. The church did not grant authority to any NT text. It merely recognized which books were already authoritative in the church. As J. I. Packer helpfully states, “The Church no more gave us the New Testament canon than Sir Isaac Newton gave us the force of gravity. God gave us gravity . . . Newton did not create gravity but recognized it.”
In the next post, we will transition to the preservation of the NT text. Specifically, we will take a look at the manuscript tradition and textual criticism.
References
[1] Henry Chadwick, The Early Church, 39.
[2] Michael Kruger, The Question of Canon, 29-46.
[3] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.11.8.
[4] Justin Martyr, First Apology, 67.3.
[5] Ignatius, Romans. 4:4.
[6] Epistle of Barnabas 4.14.
[7] Polycarp, Philippians, 12.1.
[8] Michael Kruger, Canon Revisited, 228.
[9] Michael Kruger, The Question of Canon, 168.
[10] Origen, Homily on Joshua 7.1.
[11] Eusebius, Church History, 3.25.1-7.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Why We Know the New Testament Writers Told the Truth by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3 and Mp4) Jesus, You and the Essentials of
Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD) Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide
Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels by J. Warner Wallace (Book)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Leasure holds a Master of Arts from Furman University and a Masters of Divinity from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Currently, he’s a Doctor of Ministry candidate at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He also serves as a pastor at Grace Bible Church in Moore, SC
Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3KTGEHP
Be a Monster or a Hero? John Cooper of Skillet
PodcastDo you have to have a degree in theology, philosophy, or apologetics in order to speak powerfully and accurately about how the church is being influenced by the culture? If you think so—if you think that all of this should be left to the professionals, to some kind of expert class or clergy—then you haven’t been reading your Bible enough. You’ve left that to the expert class or clergy, which is exactly the problem we’re seeing in the church today.
John Cooper, founder and lead singer of the wildly popular Christian rock band Skillet, gets it. He knows that all of us should be ambassadors for Christ doing ministry, not just clergy or those with advanced degrees. He joins Frank to address the scourge of high-profile Christian musicians and celebrities who have deconstructed their faith (not realizing that they have simply reconstructed another one). John has been discussing these issues recently on his CooperStuff podcast. Here he explains further and also reveals his personal testimony and how Skillet broke through to have wide appeal, even to non-Christians.
Join Frank and John, along with Alisa Childers, Hugh Ross, J. Warner Wallace, and many others at the National Conference of Christian Apologetics this April near Charlotte NC. Go to SES.edu for details.
If you would like to submit a question to be answered on the show, please email your question to Hello@Crossexamined.org.
Subscribe on Apple Podcast: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast Rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Google Play: https://cutt.ly/0E2eua9
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher
¿Qué pensaba Jesús sobre el Antiguo Testamento?
EspañolBy Ryan Leasure
It’s not uncommon for Christians to throw shade at the Old Testament. These Christians say they love Jesus, but they could do without those early Jewish texts. In fact, many Christians suggest that much of the Old Testament is ahistorical. Events like the flood, Jonah being swallowed by a great fish, or the fiery judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah never happened. And then there’s the infamous quote that Christians simply need to “unhook themselves from the Old Testament” because so much of it is embarrassing or difficult to understand. Why can’t we focus on Jesus?
We can certainly sympathize with these sentiments. After all, the flood and the judgment of Sodom seem pretty incredible, and pretty harsh at that. Wouldn’t it be easier to ignore this ancient corpus? This stance seems reasonable until one realizes that the same Jesus whom these Christians worship also holds the Old Testament in high regard. He not only affirms the inspiration of the Old Testament, but also its historicity and authority.
The Old Testament is inspired
Historically, Christians have affirmed the verbal plenary inspiration of the Bible. That is, they acknowledge that every word of Scripture is “God-breathed” (2 Tim. 3:16-17). At the same time, God spoke through a human agency. Therefore, Scripture not only has a divine author, it also has human authors.
Jesus affirmed the human authors of the Old Testament. He repeatedly acknowledges that Moses is the one who gave the Law (Matthew 8:4; 19:8; Mark 1:44; 7:10; Luke 5:14; 20:37; John 5:46; 7:19). He will say things like, “Do what Moses commanded” (Mark 1:44). Oh, “Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’” (Mark 7:10). Concerning other Old Testament authors, Jesus states, “Well did Isaiah prophesy…” (Mark 7:6). Also, “David himself, in the Holy Spirit, declared… .” (Mark 12:36). And “So when you see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet…” (Matthew 24:15). It is worth noting that almost all critical scholars question the authorship of these individuals, in clear contradiction to Jesus.
At the same time, Jesus affirms that these individuals wrote divinely inspired Scripture. As just alluded to, Jesus noted in Mark 12:36, “David himself, in the Holy Spirit, declared…” In other words, David wrote, but his writings were the result of the work of the Holy Spirit (2 Pet 1:20-21). He also declared, “Well did Isaiah prophesy…” (Mark 7:6). The mere mention of prophecy suggests that Isaiah wrote from God. Prophecy, after all, is by definition “a word from God.” The same could be said of Matthew 24:15 when Jesus refers to Daniel as “the prophet.” Furthermore, in addressing the scribes and Pharisees, Jesus states, “You forsake the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men” (Mark 7:8). He then clarifies that God’s commandment was what Moses wrote in Exodus 20.
As John Wenhan points out, “For [Jesus], Moses, the prophets, David, and the other writers of Scripture were truly inspired men with a message given by the Spirit of God.”
The Old Testament is historically accurate
While many are willing to concede the inspiration of the Old Testament, many of these same individuals deny that it is historically accurate on all points. They may affirm its historical nature in general (God created the world, called Abraham and the Jewish people, the Jews were exiled, etc.), but balk at some of the more difficult texts (the flood, Sodom, Jonah, etc.). That said, Jesus has no qualms about affirming the historical character of the Old Testament, even the most difficult texts to believe. Here are some examples:
He believed that Cain killed Abel (Luke 11:51), that God sent a flood but spared Noah on the ark (Matthew 24:37-39), and that God destroyed Sodom because of its wickedness (Matthew 11:23-24). He even adds, “Remember Lot’s wife” (Luke 17:32). Furthermore, Jesus believed that God sent manna from heaven (John 6:31), that the Israelites were healed by looking at the serpent (John 3:14), and that Jonah was swallowed by a great fish only to be put to death three days later (Matthew 12:39-41).
The last text about Jonah is especially significant because it shows that Jesus did not view these events merely figuratively. Indeed, at the end of the text we read: “The men of Nineveh will rise up with this generation in the judgment and condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, something greater than Jonah is here” (Mt 12:41 ESV). It is difficult to imagine how Jesus could claim that Nineveh would rise up in the final judgment against the people who rejected him, if it was a farce. The same could be said of Jesus’ statement in Matthew 24:37: “For as the days of Noah were, so will be the coming of the Son of Man” (ESV). In other words, just as God’s judgment was poured out in the days of Noah, so it will be again at the final judgment.
Again, Wenham comments, “It is evident that [Jesus] was familiar with most of our Old Testament and treated it all equally as history.”2
The Old Testament has authority
Because Jesus believed the Old Testament was divinely inspired, he also claimed its full authority. He demonstrated this authority by appealing to the scriptures dozens of times.
When asked what the greatest commandments are, He declares that “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind . . . And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:37-39). Jesus said that these two commandments (Deut. 6:4-6; Lev. 19:18) summarize the entirety of the Old Testament and are the guide for all ethical questions.
When faced with temptation, Jesus appealed to the authority of Scripture to fight Satan. He repeatedly declared, “It is written, it is written, it is written” (Matthew 4:1–11). Even when facing death, the last words He spoke were from the Old Testament (Psalm 22:1; 31:5).
Jesus appeals to Genesis 1-2 when speaking of marriage and divorce . He asks, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘ For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? They are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate . ” (Mt 19:4-6 ESV) By alluding to Genesis 1-2 here, Jesus is asserting that his position on marriage and divorce is rooted in the authority of the Old Testament text. In contrast, Jesus’ opponents rooted their position in different rabbis (Shammai and Hillel).
In disputing with the Sadducees about the resurrection, Jesus rebukes them: ” But Jesus answered and said to them, ‘ You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God . . . ‘” (Matthew 22:29 ESV). In other words, the Scriptures give us the definitive, authoritative word on the resurrection. Jesus goes on to ask them: “Have you not read what God said to you: ‘I am the God of Abraham . . . ‘” (Matthew 31–32). Again, Jesus appeals to the Old Testament text to affirm God’s power over the resurrection.
Jesus goes so far as to say that ” and the Scripture cannot be broken ” (John 10:35 ESV). For Jesus, Scripture is so powerful that nothing can undo it.
Jesus and the Old Testament
All the evidence taken together suggests that Jesus held the Old Testament in high regard. Those who claim to hold Jesus in high regard but reject some of the Old Testament teachings are being inconsistent. If Jesus is held in high regard, then the Old Testament must also be held in high regard. As John Wenham points out:
“For Christ, the Old Testament was true, authoritative, and inspired. For him, the God of the Old Testament was the living God, and the teaching of the Old Testament was the teaching of the living God. For him, what Scripture said, God said.”3
*For more information on this topic, see John Wenham’s book Christ and the Bible .
Recommended resources in Spanish:
Stealing from God ( Paperback ), ( Teacher Study Guide ), and ( Student Study Guide ) by Dr. Frank Turek
Why I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist ( Complete DVD Series ), ( Teacher’s Workbook ), and ( Student’s Handbook ) by Dr. Frank Turek
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Leasure is the pastor of Grace Bible Church in Moore, SC. For more information about his background and interests, click here .
Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/35RC9P5
Translated by Yatniel Vega Garcia
Edited by Jennifer Chavez
Should Christians Pursue Personal Success?
Apologetics for Parents, Culture CrossExaminedBy Mike Taylor
Have you ever found yourself looking at someone else’s life on social media and wondering how they’re able to do all that they do? We see people on Instagram taking vacations, buying cars, starting businesses, quitting their jobs, and doing other glamorous things all while simultaneously raising multiple kids and finishing their Master’s degree. Or so it seems, at least.
And as we take in their glorious life, we can’t help but wonder: how on earth do they have the time and money and energy to do these things?
Then we might start to wonder, “Is living a life focused on material wealth and personal success something God wants for us?” Because it feels like the glorification of wealth is everywhere we look nowadays, and Christians are often right at the forefront of the madness.
But is it okay for Christians to pursue these things? Is it okay for Christians to pursue personal success and material wealth in a capitalistic society?
Let’s keep it simple. Let’s go back to the things we need. We all need two things in our life: comfort and significance.
Look at Maslow’s hierarchy of needs:
In that context, everything we pursue in life comes down to these two very basic categories: comfort and significance.
In fact, we will only give up one of those things inasmuch as we are able to gain from the other. It’s a very interesting dynamic.
For example, a person will only exercise (sacrificing comfort) if they believe that such an activity will give them more physical and mental significance. They’ll push themselves pretty hard in the gym if they believe that hard work and discipline will make them more significant.
The same is true of comfort. We’re typically only willing to give up the chance at being significant if it gains us a significant amount of comfort. Plenty of people spend a disproportionate amount of time outside of work and other obligations sitting on a couch eating junk food. We’re all guilty of this on some level, and the reason we do it is because we are, either consciously or unconsciously, making a decision to accept comfort in the place of significance. It’s a tradeoff we’re willing to make whether we realize it or not.
So, then, “success” is simply shorthand for more comfort and significance. If we explore what it means to be successful, we’ll find that everything we envision comes back to these two things.
So the question is: is God okay with me pursuing more comfort and significance?
Neither comfort nor significance is bad. In fact, I would argue that we are alive for these two reasons. All the best things about being alive bring some level of comfort. If we are uncomfortable, and if we are uncomfortable for no reason associated with future gain of comfort or significance, then something is probably wrong.
For example, if you’re experiencing increasing levels of discomfort in your back in the form of back pain, there’s probably something wrong. You instinctively know that because there is no end goal of achieving more comfort or significance from your back pain.
So discomfort in and of itself is not a good thing. Yet your body knows that and continually alarms you using discomfort and causing you to address potential long-term problems.
If you’re a follower of Jesus, then everything you believe is based on comfort and significance.
Heaven is comfort (Revelation 21:4), walking with God here on Earth brings comfort (2 Corinthians 1:3-4, Psalm 23:4), and being a child of God is where you find significance.
God made us to find comfort and significance in him, and like it or not, everything we do in our lives revolves around these two things.
The problem comes in when we lose focus on the right source of these two things.
Too often in our lives, we lean on other sources of both comfort and significance. We look to our jobs, our families, our social status, and any other number of things to help us gain comfort and significance.
The problem is, nothing ever fills the void, and people who mean well end up abandoning their false sources of comfort and significance without ever replacing those sources with the true source. Then we end up believing that comfort and significance are things that aren’t meant for us.
I cannot tell you how many people I’ve come across who live empty lives because they’ve come to believe that comfort and significance are bad things. And it’s true, when you’re reaching for the wrong source, they are bad things. But we were made for comfort and significance.
Think about the biblical history of the human race. At one point in our history, we had all the comfort and significance we wanted. We had every resource at our disposal and all the authority we could ever ask for. That was the garden of Eden. Except there was more.
There was one thing that seemed as if it could bring more comfort and significance, so we tried it out. We thought that if we just learned enough and tried hard enough then we could be the source of our own comfort and significance. Yet here we are today still trying the same tactics. It doesn’t bring lasting comfort or significance now just like it didn’t then.
But here’s where it gets fun. Once you can see and identify the problem, you actually have a chance at resolving it. Once you know that God intends for you to have comfort and significance, now you know what void to fill. Now you know what battle to fight.
The truth is, success is not something to be feared. Not all dreams in your heart are not things to be stifled. It’s not always pride and it’s not always the enemy trying to destroy your life through aspirations.
You’re alive for a purpose, and that purpose can and should bring you sentence comfort and significance (i.e., success). If we can learn to fight the battle within ourselves – the battle of trying to gain comfort and significance on our own instead of pulling them from God – then we’ve learned to fight the only battle worth fighting, the fight of faith.
The faith you and I are fighting for is the belief that comfort and significance come from a higher source and not from our own abilities to achieve. So don’t shy away from success. Success is just shorthand for comfort and significance, and God had every intention of making you successful.
Instead of seeing success as something to shun, see it for what it is – a gift from your Father. Once you realize that, then you’ll find increasing gratitude and fulfillment that, frankly, only come from seeing success. If you see yourself as a lowly person whose job it is to give up everything good for the sake of self-denial, then what do you have to be grateful for? How are you tasting and seeing that the Lord is good? (Psalm 34:8)
God promises prosperity for his people when they listen and follow him (Psalm 1:1-3, Leviticus 26). Jesus said, “But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.” He said “all” these things – not the bare minimum of these things. God doesn’t want you to live a life in despair. In fact, I’ll say it this way: God wants you to have it all, he just doesn’t want it all to have you.
So we shouldn’t shun success, and we certainly shouldn’t speak against those who have success. Ecclesiastes 10:20 says, “Do not revile the king even in your thoughts, or curse the rich in your bedroom.” Instead, like Jesus said, “use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings.” Use success as a tool for godly influence.
Success is a magnifying glass – it makes you more of what you already are. And if you ask me, the world needs more successful Christ-hearted people.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Counter Culture Christian: Is the Bible True? by Frank Turek (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD)
Counter Culture Christian: Is There Truth in Religion? (DVD) by Frank Turek
Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels by J. Warner Wallace (Book)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Mike P. Taylor is an author from Nashville, TN who writes at mikeptaylor.com about biblical, practical, and relevant content that re-shape how modern culture understands the goodness of God.
Should we expose false teachers?
PodcastThere are some people in the Christian church that say we ought not to expose false teachers or publicly name names. Rather, we should just focus on preaching the gospel. Question: Suppose your pastor got up one Sunday and told the congregation that they’d just found out that someone in the church had been exposing your kids to pornography and drugs. What would be your first question? “Who is this person pastor?!” Now suppose that same pastor responded with, “I don’t like to name names, let’s just focus on Jesus.” Would you accept that? No, and you shouldn’t! So it is when false teachers spread poisonous messages within the Christian church.
In this week’s episode, Frank addresses such questions as:
• How can we best preserve unity in the church?
• Is unity the most important thing?
• Is it wrong to publicly name names in the church?
• What does the Bible have to say about how we are to deal with false teachers?
BONUS: In the last segment Frank discusses Gov. Ron DeSantis’ comments regarding Disney’s woke lobbying against the Parental Rights in Education bill – also falsely dubbed the “Don’t Say Gay” bill. You don’t want to miss it!
Also, check Greg Koukl’s statement to his high school board here.
If you would like to submit a question to be answered on the show, please email your question to Hello@Crossexamined.org.
Subscribe on Apple Podcast: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast Rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Google Play: https://cutt.ly/0E2eua9
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher