What A Squirrel Believes – Bibliology

What A Squirrel Believes

I believe the Bible, consisting of thirty-nine books in the Old Testament and twenty-seven books in the New Testament, to be the written Revelation of God. The Scriptures are fully inspired by God and inerrant & infallible in the original writings. God intends that His Revelation be understood by humanity, and, therefore, normal rules of language should be used in the interpretation of the Bible. The Bible is sufficient for religious instruction, is the only infallible rule of faith and practice, and is of supreme and final authority regarding all matters upon which it touches. In matters not touched upon by the Bible, what is right and true must be assessed in a manner consistent with the teachings of the Scriptures.

Bibliology is that part of theology that deals with the Bible itself; what it is, how we got it, and how it is to be understood.

There is no doubt that the doctrine of God must be at the center of any Christian statement of faith, but the doctrine of Scripture must come first, because only through the Scriptures can we come to know and understand God.

What The Bible Is:

There are two ways in which God reveals Himself; general revelation and special revelation.

General revelation is God revealed in His creation. Creation alone is sufficient so that all men have the knowledge of God’s existence. Paul writes in Romans, “…that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made…” [Romans 1:19-20] So creation alone gives all of us the knowledge that God exists.

In addition to physical creation, general revelation also includes the human conscience. All people everywhere have a sense of what is right and what is wrong [Romans 2:1]. Every culture has rules against murder and stealing and the like. This moral sense is flawed and distorted by sin, but it exists, none the less, and it reveals to all men that God is a moral God. Included in this knowledge is the concept of justice and that wrongdoing requires some sort of reckoning.

From general revelation, all men know that God is, that He is vastly powerful, and that He is moral. But that is all that general revelation reveals. The only way we can know anything else about God is if He tells us; and that is where special revelation comes in. Special revelation is God’s telling us about Himself, and it is found in the pages of the scriptures we know as the Bible.

Why only the Bible? Why not the Buddhist writings, or the Book of Mormon, or the Hindu Vedas, or the Qur’an? The simple answer is found in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. My reasoning is this:

• Jesus said that He is God [John 8:58];


• Jesus proved that He is God by rising from the dead [1 Corinthians 15:3-8];


• Jesus confirmed the Jewish scriptures (what we know as the Old Testament) [Luke 16:31]


• Jesus hand-picked the writers of the New Testament [John 15:16].

While all religious writings claim divine origins, none but the Bible can offer any kind of objective evidence to support the claim.

How We Got the Bible:

Many view the Bible just like any other book, as simply the work of men, but it is much more then that. While it is true that the Bible was written by men, it is also true that God spoke through these men. Peter tells us, “…no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” [2 Peter 1:21] And Paul writes [2 Timothy 3:16-17], “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” So, all of Scripture is from God through men moved by, or “carried along” by, the Holy Spirit.

When I say that I believe that the Scriptures are “inerrant & infallible in the original writings,” I mean that the copies we have are, well, copies. We do not have any of the original writings. For many people, this is quite a problem. “If we don’t have the originals,” they say, “how can we know that what we have is what was really written so long ago?” That is a very important question!

The facts are that we do not have the original writings of any ancient works as old as the Bible. Before the printing press, making copies of a book was a difficult and labor intensive project, as everything had to be copied by hand. And, for many writings, few ancient copies remain. We have only 10 ancient copies of the writings of Julius Caesar, and they were made 1000 years after he penned the originals. Aristotle fares better; we have about 50 copies of his writings, but the earliest of them was made 1400 years after the originals. Homer’s Iliad does much better, with 600+ copies, and the earliest of these were made only 500 years after Homer first wrote it.

How does the Bible compare to these other ancient documents? For the New Testament of the Bible, we have more then 5800+ Greek manuscript copies, and the earliest date to less than 100 years after the New Testament was first written. The Bible was also translated into other languages very early in its history, and we have thousands of other ancient manuscripts in other languages, such as Syriac, Aramaic, Coptic, and Latin, that can be studied also. By comparing all these old copies, scholars of textual criticism endeavor to weed through the mistakes that occurred during the copying process to reconstruct the original words of the text. These scholars say that they are 99%+ sure of the original text, and that the parts that they are unsure of, less than 1%, do not materially affect the meaning of the text. It is pretty clear that the text of the Bible that we have today is an accurate representation of what was originally written. (Most good modern translations have footnotes that explain the different textual variants, and Greek critical texts, such as the Nestle-Aland 27, or “NA27”, will have vast footnotes that describe all the textual variants.)

How We Understand the Bible:

Because God used language to reveal Himself to people, it stands to reason that He desires that His Bible be understood by people. Therefore, it makes sense that the normal rules of language should apply to the Bible. This is called “grammatical-historical” interpretation. Grammatical-historical interpretation simply means that we look to understand the Bible by using the rules of grammar while taking into account the historical & cultural context that existed at the time it was written. In other words, we should take a literal approach to understanding the Bible, trusting that God has said exactly what He meant.

In the Bible, God tells us all that we need to know in order to find salvation in Jesus Christ and to prepare us to serve Him. 2 Timothy 3:14-17 says, “You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” So, the Bible is sufficient, and this is the heart of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

Scripture must be our final authority in everything. When the Creator of everything tells us how things are, what is left to be said? Scripture must stand above science and philosophy and human reason. The only correct understanding of anything is the understanding that is in accordance with the clear teachings of the Bible.

Got a Favorite Teacher?

We've all got favorite Bible teachers, both living and dead. I listen to John MacArthur, Alistair Begg, & Phil Johnson, among others. I read books by James White, Jerry Bridges, John MacArthur, and so on, and so forth.

But do the people who hold to a certain doctrine prove that doctrine? Of course not, the Bible must be our ultimate authority in all matters of faith and practice.

Terry Rayburn wrote a great piece on this topic a while back, I link to it now for our edification.

Infallible Magisterium or Magician’s Sleight of Hand?

Is Roman Catholicism Christian? part 4

[Earlier posts in the series: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3]

[Note: This post is really long… it was much longer, but I’ve edited it into two, and will post the second very soon. ~Squirrel]

The Church of Rome has claimed that it is the only infallible source of interpretation of the Scriptures. This belief makes the church the only definer of what is true. If the church decides what is true; then there is no accountability, they can say whatever they want, and no one has the right, or the ability, to question them. Once again, let’s let Rome define itself:

[889] In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a "supernatural sense of faith" the People of God, under the guidance of the Church's living Magisterium, "unfailingly adheres to this faith."

[890] The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium's task to preserve God's people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church's shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. the exercise of this charism takes several forms:

[891] "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.... the infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed," and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith." This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.

[892] Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a "definitive manner," they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent" which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

(Paragraph 892 just kills me. The pope is infallible… except when he’s not. How’s that for “cover your butt” vagary?)

Yet, nowhere in Scripture is this “infallible Magisterium” granted. Rome bases this belief on their tradition of “apostolic succession:” the idea that Jesus made Peter the head of the Apostles, and that that office has been passed down in an unbroken line from Peter to the current Bishop of Rome. While there is much debate over this “unbroken line” among historians, if Jesus did not, in fact, put Peter in charge, the succession is moot. So, did Jesus leave Peter in charge?

The one & only Scripture that Rome points to in order to substantiate this claim is Matthew 16:18 : "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.” Rome says that Peter is the rock upon which the Lord built His church. This claim does not work, when Matthew 16:18 is put into its context.

Let’s read the full passage:

Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets." He *said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven." Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ. (Matthew 16:13-20)

It is plain to see, in context, that the “rock” on which Jesus would build His church was Peter’s confession that Jesus was the Christ, the promised Messiah. And, while no one who is committed to the inerrancy of Scripture believes that the Apostles were infallible in what they taught, there is absolutely no reason to believe that their infallibility was passed on to anyone else.

A cursory reading of the Early Church Fathers doesn’t seem to support an infallible Magisterium either. Where did Athanasius look to support his arguments against the Arians? Without a doubt, to Scripture, and Scripture alone. It has been said that, if all ancient New Testament manuscripts were lost, we could reconstruct all but a few verses from citations made by the Early Church Fathers. That is how much they quoted from, and argued from, the Scriptures.

It has come up several times in the discussion thread that, since Protestants don’t agree on every little detail of doctrine, then sola Scriptura is a failure. I must disagree most strongly. A key principle of Bible interpretation is the perspicuity of the Scriptures: the belief that they Scriptures are clear in what they teach. That the main things are the plain things and the plain things are the main things. None of us, in our short lives on this earth, will ever come to understand everything in the Bible fully, nor are any of us going to get everything absolutely right, but the key things are so simple that a child can understand them. Jesus said, “(W)hoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it…” (Luke 18:17) We do not need to understand absolutely everything; we do not need to understand everything perfectly; but we can all understand enough that we understand what we need to understand.

What do we need to understand? We need to understand that we have all sinned against God (Romans 3:23). We need to understand that, because of our sin against God, we all deserve to die, and spend eternity apart from God, but that God, through Jesus Christ, has made it possible to be forgiven and to have eternal life with God in heaven (Romans 6:23). We need to understand that this forgiveness is available because Jesus died for us on the cross, taking our punishment, and giving us His righteousness in exchange (Romans 5:8; 2 Corinthians 5:21). We need to understand that this salvation is available only through Jesus Christ (John 14:6; Acts 4:10-12). And we need to understand that this salvation is available only by God’s grace through faith, and that there is nothing, absolutely nothing, that we can do to earn it (Ephesians 2:8-9). All of these things can be easily understood from Scripture alone.

What of Rome’s infallible Magisterium? It’s like a shell game. Rome promises you this great certainty, that the church is infallible, but when you pick up the shell, there’s no pea under it. They never have to prove anything; they never have to support anything. You just have to take Rome’s word for it, and that’s it.

Well, God did not operate that way in the Old Testament, but, through signs and wonders, He verified His messengers. Moses’ words were attested to by signs that signified that he spoke for God. And Moses’ words were enscripted for future generations to read and be enlightened through.

When God established the Prophets in Israel, He did so through the signs and wonders associated with the ministries of Elijah and Elisha. After the Babylonian Captivity, the Old Testament canon was closed, and there were no prophets in Israel (1 Maccabees 4:46 &9:27) until the coming of John the Baptist (Luke 1:76). During the 400 or so “silent years” when there were no prophets in Israel, God did not establish any “Magisterium” to infallible interpret the Scriptures. (The Pharisees abrogated for themselves this position, but we’ve already seen what Jesus had to say about their traditions, and how those traditions related to what was written in the Scriptures {Mark 7:1-9})

In His story about Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:20-31), Jesus said, “They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them,” and, “If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.” (Luke 16:29,31) Jesus was saying that all anybody needed to do was read and believe Moses and the Prophets (by implication, the Old Testament) in order to be saved. Jesus didn’t point to infallible “teachings” or “traditions”, He pointed to infallible Scripture.

The Scriptures are sufficient “to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” (2 Timothy 3:15) We do not need, nor do we have any reason to believe in, any “infallible Magisterium.”



[I would like to thank L. D. for his research, some of which was incorporated in this article. ~Squirrel]

Is Roman Catholicism Christian? Part 3

[Part 1 -- Part 2]

Scripture vs. Tradition

We’re spending so much time on sola Scriptura, because it is from Rome’s rejection of this that their other errors spring. When last we visited this subject, we saw that Rome does, indeed, deny the doctrine of sola Scriptura. This was not hard to do, since Rome makes no bones about denying sola Scriptura. In fact, Rome considers sola Scriptura to be a false doctrine, and the chief source of doctrinal confusion, not only between Roman Catholics and Protestants, but within the Protestant camp as well.

So, just what is sola Scriptura?

To hear many Roman Catholics talk, sola Scriptura is a person sitting alone on an island somewhere with a Bible, but with no access to Godly pastors, teachers, history books, lexicographies and grammars, archaeology, or anything else that would help put the words of the Scripture into context. That is not the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura! (I will say this, though. If you did have someone alone on an island, with nothing but a Bible, they would never, ever, from the Bible, not in a million years, come up with what we know as Roman Catholicism!)

Sola Scriptura is the doctrine that the 66 canonical books of the Bible are the only infallible authority for all matters of faith (what a Christian believes) and practice (how a Christian worships God.) Our understanding of Scripture is informed by Godly men who spend their lives studying the Bible, by history, by archaeology, by language study, and a whole host of other disciplines, but it is the Scripture which has the final word. Nor is sola Scriptura a wholesale rejection of all tradition, but sola Scriptura does say that all teachings and traditions must be measured against Scripture, and anything which contradicts Scripture must be rejected.

Does the Bible teach sola Scriptura?

The short answer is yes, and I will support that by looking briefly at three passages.

The first is 2 Timothy 3:14-17:

You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Here Paul points Timothy to the written Word of God, called “the sacred writings” in verse 15, and Scripture in verse 16. It is the written Word, breathed out by God, which is sufficient for teaching what is true, for identifying what is false, for the restoration to truth from error, and for the teaching of what should be taught. The Scriptures are enough to supply the doctrines of the Christian faith, no extra-Biblical traditions are needed.

The second is Acts 17:10-11:

The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.

Regarding this passage, John MacArthur writes, “It is highly significant that the Bereans are explicitly commended for examining the apostolic message in light of Scripture. They had the priority right: Scripture is the supreme rule of faith, by which everything else is to be tested.” If even an actually apostle’s teachings were to be checked against Scripture, should not the Pope and the Cardinals be held to the same standard?

The last passage I would like to look at today is Mark 7:1-9:

The Pharisees and some of the scribes gathered around Him when they had come from Jerusalem, and had seen that some of His disciples were eating their bread with impure hands, that is, unwashed. (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they carefully wash their hands, thus observing the traditions of the elders; and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they cleanse themselves; and there are many other things which they have received in order to observe, such as the washing of cups and pitchers and copper pots.) The Pharisees and the scribes *asked Him, "Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with impure hands?" And He said to them, "Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: 'THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME. 'BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.' "Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men." He was also saying to them, "You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.

Here, Jesus deals with the Pharisees’ adherence to tradition in direct contradiction to the written words of Scripture. I believe that this speaks clearly to the exact same situation in the Roman Catholic Church.

When we return to this subject, I would like to look at some of the consequences of Rome’s rejection of sola Scriptura.

Dr. Oakley on Sola Scriptura

As I continue to work at writing my next post on the subject, I wanted to point you towards Dr. James White's closing statement from his 1999 debate with Fr. Mitchell Pacwa in San Diego, CA, on the topic of sola scriptura.