Biblical Authority

The Self-Attestation of the Bible as the Inspired Word of God.

The Self-Attestation of the Bible as the Inspired Word of God. KP10-IAB.Part 01/10

A. God has spoken: Necessity of special or biblical revelation.
Two divisions of revelation: (1) General or natural revelation which pertains to God’s revelation in nature and history, (2) Special revelation inscribed in the Bible which is God’s authoritative, infallible and inerrant Word.

B. Two approaches to the Bible
1. Approach the Bible based on so-called neutral criteria & evidence. Problem: a) In reality there is no neutral criteria of judgment. b) At best this approach can demonstrate the Bible as an accurate document but it cannot demonstrate the Bible as God’s revealed Word.

2. Begin with the Bible’s self-testimony to be the inspired Word of God which is self-evidencing and self-authenticating, and then proceed to handle doubts and difficulties.
Premise: God’s revealed Word should display its own power of conviction when it is accompanied by the Holy Spirit.

The final foundation in doctrine of inspiration and authority of the Bible is not historical-critical scholarship, the magisterium etc. It is the infallible attestation of Jesus Christ with the witness of the Spirit.

You may view the video podcast at
The Self-Attestation of the Bible as the Inspired Word of God. KP10-IAB.Part 01/10

Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone) Does Not Mean Solo Scriptura (Scripture Only – Biblicism)

What is Biblicism?
To be Protestant is to believe in biblical authority. However, biblical authority and biblicism are not synonymous. Biblicism moves beyond believing in the final authority of the Bible to imposing a restrictive hermeneutical method onto the Bible. Biblicism can be identified by the following symptoms:

(1) Ahistorical mindset: Biblicism is a haughty disregard (chronological snobbery in the words of C. S. Lewis) for the history of interpretation and the authority of creeds and confessions, chanting an individualistic mantra, “No creed but the Bible,” which in practice translates into “No authority but me.” Sola scriptura is radicalized into solo scriptura. As a result, biblicism fails to let theology inform exegesis, which is designed to guard against heresy.

(2) Irresponsible proof texting: Biblicism treats Scripture as if it is a dictionary or encyclopedia, as if the theologian merely excavates the right proof texts, chapter and verse, tallying them up to support a doctrine. Biblicism limits itself to those beliefs explicitly laid down in Scripture and fails to deduce doctrines from Scripture by good and necessary consequence. Continue reading “Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone) Does Not Mean Solo Scriptura (Scripture Only – Biblicism)”

Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, Part 2: Why the Canonical Gospels are more reliable than Gnostic Gospels.

Question: But critics like Elaine Pagels & Bart Ehrman argue that this traditional history of orthodoxy is skewed because it grants greater authority to the canonical gospels and ignores the other (gnostic ) gospels. Why do you think the canonical four gospels provide more accurate historical information about Jesus than the gnostic gospels?

Discussants: Dr. Ng Kam Weng and Mr. Micheal Lim

You are welcome to join the discussion at:
Why the Canonical Gospels are more reliable than Gnostic Gospels.

Please forward this message if you find the video discussion helpful.

Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity Part 1: Was there diversity of Christian beliefs in the early church as different sects competed for influence?

Question: Many secular university scholars argue that there was diversity of Christian beliefs in the early church as different sects competed with one another for influence. When the sect in Rome gained power it declared itself orthodox and condemned the other sects like Gnosticism to be heretical. What is your response?

Discussants: Dr. Ng Kam Weng and Mr. Micheal Lim

You are welcome to join the discussion at:
Part 1: Was there diversity of Christian beliefs in the early church as different sects competed for influence?

Please forward this message if you find the video discussion helpful.

Bart Ehrman’s Historical Revisionism. Part 2/3. Relegating Orthodoxy in Early Christianity

A. Bauer-Ehrman Revisionist History – “Heresy Preceded Orthodoxy”
Ehrman’s assertion that the early Christians took liberty with scripture flows from his contested claim that there was no defining leadership in the early church. According to Ehrman, there was no notion of orthodoxy in early Christianity. Instead, a variety of “christianities” like the Ebionites, the Marcionites, the Gnostics and “proto-orthodoxy” [Ehrman’s coins the term “proto-orthodoxy” as he refuses to acknowledge that there was orthodoxy in early Christianity] vied for power and influence. Ehrman argues that alternative forms of “christianities” and their sacred writings which include the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Peter should be regarded to be of equal authenticity (or in Ehrman’s real estimation, of equal inauthenticity) as the four canonical gospels. Indeed, he questions the special regard given the canonical gospels by orthodoxy since to him, the New Testament canon as it is, came to be only when the politically powerful “proto-orthodox” Christians in Rome unilaterally decided which book to be included in or excluded from Christian Scripture, and then applied ecclesiastical machinations and coercive policies to force other Christians to accept their decision. The other forms of “christianities” were then stigmatized by the victorious “proto-orthodox” party to be heretical and their writings were erased from history until some of them were discovered in Nag Hammadi in 1945. Ehrman writes, Continue reading “Bart Ehrman’s Historical Revisionism. Part 2/3. Relegating Orthodoxy in Early Christianity”

Bart Ehrman’s Historical Revisionism. Part 1/3. Misquoting Scripture

Bart Ehrman’s primary mission in life is undeniable. It is to discredit Christianity and to deconvert Christians from their faith. Ehrman’s attack on Christianity has been effective because he claims to be speaking as an objective historian (which is debatable), in contrast to apologists and theologians defending their faith and because he is speaking as a lapse fundamentalist with insider-knowledge. Ehrman’s attack on Christianity is comprehensive, but I shall only highlight three of his favorite lines of attack on Christianity. Continue reading “Bart Ehrman’s Historical Revisionism. Part 1/3. Misquoting Scripture”

Compromise in Biblical Inerrancy and Authority of the Bible is an Existential Threat to the Church

Former church turned into a bar

The article offers some sober lessons for the church. Churches begin to decline when they they make compromises in the final and sufficient authority of the Bible in order to remain ‘relevant’ to wider culture and society. Some of us can remember how many Malaysian churches in the 1960s went into decline because they neglected the Great Commission due to the influence of liberal theology. Compromise in biblical inerrancy and biblical authority is an existential threat to the church.

Lessons:
1) Compromise in biblical inerrancy and final authority is the slippery slide which results in the death of a thousand cuts for the church. Continue reading “Compromise in Biblical Inerrancy and Authority of the Bible is an Existential Threat to the Church”

Unity and Composition of Deuteronomy as a Covenant Treaty

“You are standing today, all of you, before the LORD your God…so that you may enter into the sworn covenant of the LORD your God, which the LORD your God is making with you today, that he may establish you today as his people, and that he may be your God, as he promised you, and as he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.” Deut. 29:10,13

A number of scholars have argued convincingly that there is a relationship in form between the Hebrew covenant and the ancient Near Eastern vassal treaty…

In its classical form, the Near Eastern vassal treaty has the following component parts:

1. Preamble (“These are the words . . .”).
2. Historical Prologue (“antecedent history,” i.e., events leading to and forming the basis of the treaty).
3. General Stipulations (statement of substance concerning the future relationship, which (1) is intimately related to the antecedent history, and (2) summarizes the purpose of the specific stipulations).
4. Specific Stipulations.
5. Divine Witnesses: various deities are called to witness the treaty.
6. Blessings and Curses: relating respectively to the maintenance or breach of the covenant. Continue reading “Unity and Composition of Deuteronomy as a Covenant Treaty”

Reading the Bible as a Covenantal Document

One of the prominent features of contemporary historical criticism is to dissect the bible into discrete units which are taken to represent the earlier historical sources and literary traditions which underlie the biblical text. Having identified these historical sources, critical scholars then analyze how they are pieced together into the various books of the bible. As an example, critical scholars argue that the Pentateuch is a compilation of four originally independent documents: the Jahwist (J), Elohist (E), Deuteronomist (D), and Priestly (P) sources. According to critical scholars, the Pentateuch did not originate with Moses (~1400 BC), but were finally complied by some unknown redactors during the Jewish Babylonian exile (~400 BC).

Presumably, this critical historical exercise would enable scholars to gain insights into the literary intentions or ideological biases of the final redactors of the presently preserved biblical text. This exercise may enable scholars to speculate on the history of the composition of the text. But one wonders whether the critical approach may lead scholars to miss the forest for the trees, that is, to be so focused on the discrete and artificially constructed fragments of the text that they overlook the meaning of the bible which becomes evident when one reads the books of the bible holistically.

An alternative approach to the historical-critical reading of the bible would be to take the bible on its own terms, that is, to read the bible holistically. Meredith Kline argues that such a holistic reading is necessary because the bible is in its literary-formal form a covenantal document, and that biblical canon must be read holistically as a treaty-canon. Continue reading “Reading the Bible as a Covenantal Document”

Finding nuance in the inerrancy debate. A Response to Michael Bird

Michael Bird mounts a critique of classical evangelicals who defend inerrancy of Scripture in his recent article, “Finding nuance in the inerrancy debate.”

I am a classical evangelical, that is, an evangelical who affirms inerrancy of Scripture. I confess being guilty of making a big issue of inerrancy of Scriptures, but I remain recalcitrant and unrepentant despite the sharp criticism levelled by such an enlightened mind like Michael Bird.

I disagree with Bird that a precise definition of inerrancy is a luxury for the global evangelical churches which are facing pressures from hostile authorities. To be sure, inerrancy needs not be the “number one issue that separates the good guys from the bad guys,” but based on my experience as a theologian living in the majority world, and as one who is committed to the Great Commission, I am concerned that a fuzzy commitment to the reliability and final authority of inerrant Scripture will undermine confidence and zeal for Christian witness in places where other world religions are predominant. For example, Christian witness to Muslims is likely to be abortive if Christians fail to defend the inerrancy of the Bible when Muslim polemists contend that the Bible is unreliable and contains errors. Continue reading “Finding nuance in the inerrancy debate. A Response to Michael Bird”