The Bible

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

To understand its character, I simply remember 3 numbers: one, nineteen, and one hundred nineteen.

Psalm 1: Blessed is the man who delights in the law of the LORD, who meditates on it day and night. The torah is planted in his heart, and grows like a tree by streams of water.

On the contrary, the wicked are like chaff - dust. Gone.

(Parenthetical insert: Psalm 2 clearly shows that the righteous, obedient Man of Psalm 1 is none other than Jesus Christ. The Anointed, eternal King, and Son of God. Hear Him, and live).

Psalm 19. Verses 7 through 9 are the finest poetry. I believe the writer has met and appreciates the word, on its own merits.

Psalm 119. Boom. If you ever get in, you never get out. Paradise.

BTW, every 19 years are the ancient solar and lunar calendars reconciled. "While I am with you it is day, when I am gone it will be night." The written word, like the moon, reflects the brightness of the Sun. But when the Sun comes, the need for the moon's light will be no more.

So it is clear that the law is part of the word that is talked about. Besides the law, what was David speaking of when he mentioned meditating on it day and night?

When it says "your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path" what part of what we now call the OT was being considered? (ignoring what was yet to come in the prophets after that time)

Again, I am not disparaging the Bible as a complete collection of the writings we need. But is it all "scripture" in the sense of what was to be meditated upon? The answer may be "yes." And it may be because we have the inner sense to say that it is so. But do the various passages make the broad statements that we think they do, or do we consider the issue answered, therefore they automatically do?

In other words, have we decided that everything is simply synonymous where the words "word," "scripture," "scrolls," etc., are used? Or have we assumed their equality of meaning and moved on?

The problem that I see in the "it's all God's word and therefore equal" is that we then too often consider everything as a separate and singularly important statement that needs no context. I have used the example before from Galatians. Paul is writing to the believers there about their accepting of alternatives to the gospel that he had preached to them. He does not directly identify all of the issues involved, but he hints at them in the things he writes about. So in chapter 2 he gets to Peter acting hypocritically concerning full acceptance of the Gentiles.

As he moves forward with that passage, he makes a rather famous statement — "I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me."

A very significant statement. But instead of dealing with the statement as part of the overall discussion, we have pulled it out and written books about becoming crucified with Christ. But that is not what Paul says. He is declaring that the spiritual reality is that we are separated from our old life by the crucified life of Christ. We don't need to figure out how to get there, we need to live the life that we are called to live which is by faith in the Son of God.

When I read the gospels, I do not see a lot of references to reading the scripture. Not none, but not a lot. I don't see a lot of references to the process of meeting, though meeting is not ignored. Instead a see a lot of speaking about the nature and character of the people of God. Those who follow Jesus. So when I read Paul, such as in Galatians, I get skeptical when someone focusses on 2:20 rather than on 2:14 where Paul said to Peter "When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?"

in 2:20 Paul provides a spiritual truth that should provide the way to live as one who accepts Gentiles without forcing their submission to Jewish rituals.

The point in all of this is that I believe that this is profitable for teaching. But does that make it scripture in the more narrow sense? Or just in the most broad sense?

And even if scripture, is it all equal in every way? Or is there God's direct speaking and the inspired commentary? Still inspired and profitable for teaching. But as connected to the core of what God has sad and not as its own little universe of teaching.

This is, I think, one of the serious errors of the teachings of Lee, and often an error in teaching of many evangelicals.

But, in the end, there is no definition of the Bible in the Bible. Its definition as the Bible is outside of itself. Whether that correctly imbues status as scripture is unclear. In the time of Christ, there was a common reference to the Law and Prophets. But there is more than just those two in what we call the OT. Are they all scripture? And just because certain Psalms are quoted by Jesus, does it automatically grant all 150 of them "scripture" status?

Not trying to suggest that anything is not scripture, but rather that it is so because we have faith that it is so. And within that faith we conclude that certain statements about parts of it are at least possibly extended to all.

But whether it is or is not true is not really a study of facts. It is not entirely an effort in apologetics. It is not scientifically provable. Instead it is accepted by faith.