Category Archives: The Bible

December 1, 2012 · 4:44 pm

John MacArthur’s misunderstanding about the sufficiency of scripture

I recently listened to several sermons by John MacArthur on the sufficiency of scripture, which is what is prompting this article.  By the middle of each sermon I was shouting at the radio, and not “Amen” or “Hallelujah.”  The lead-off was talking about how psychology has infiltrated the church.

Now, I have to be clear from the outset, I don’t think a psychologist has the requisite training to be a pastor, that takes a whole other type of schooling and training.  The opposite holds true; a pastor that has only been trained to teach out of the Bible doesn’t have the requisite training to be a psychologist.  What does any of this have to do with the sufficiency of scripture?  Well, Johnny Mac’s point was that the Bible is sufficient for all spiritual need… which apparently includes mental need from his POV.

Does the Bible contain teachings that apply to psychology?  Yes.  Is it, sufficient in and of itself to treat someone’s mental disorder?  Well, let me ask this; is the Bible sufficient to teach someone to set a broken leg?  The answer to both is “no” without any insult to the Bible.  A human is physical, mental, and spiritual.  The Bible is mainly a spiritual guide, with overlap in the physical and mental areas.  We would never make the argument that if someone is suffering from cancer, that the Bible gives us specific cures.  It is the same for mental health.

MacArthur bemoans the fact that people look for answers outside the Bible… we do that all the time, in fact he does that all the time.  When you have a problem with your car, the Bible does not teach you how to fix it.  Beyond that, what MacArthur teaches sounds like a form of idolatry; the Bible isn’t to be worshiped, God is.  The Bible, as a physical, written document is not sufficient to save anyone.  Only God is sufficient. That is why the Bible should be labeled the word of God, while Jesus is The Word of God.

Further, I did not hear MacArthur teach on Ephesians 4; specifically:

Ephesians 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

Notice that these people are to teach, so a written manuscript is not sufficient for the perfecting of the saints.  It takes teaching and guiding, it also takes the Holy Spirit!  Should psychology run the church? No.  Should psychology be preached from the pulpits? No.  Do humans have a mind that can have issues that need addressed outside of scripture? Yes.  To teach anything else is to neglect a God-given aspect of humanity, and to put believers in danger who are listening to John MacArthur.  The danger is that someone suffering from a mental disorder, or mental pain may not get the help they need, being scared that psychology is somehow “of the Devil.”

The Bible teaches us about life, and eternal life.  Without God we are doomed, without Jesus we are doomed, so the eternal state of your soul should be your number one priority.  However, there are aspects to our earthly lives that will have to be dealt with alongside scripture, not out of scripture.  Mental health overlaps with spiritual and physical health, and we need to make sure each of the three is getting fed, and treated.  Scripture helps with all of them, and is sufficient for moral and spiritual teachings, but it was not meant to cover all we humans will encounter here, so the next time my power goes out, I’m not going to quote scripture and think it will magically come back on, someone at the power company is going to have to fix it.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Christianity, Ministries, Psychology, The Bible

Tagged as , , , , ,

April 13, 2010 · 2:45 am

Feedback; The Bible…

I had a recent question on my stance on the Bible; here is the link to a previous article on my blog: The Reliability of The Bible.  I encourage all the new readers to my blog (hello, BTW!) to utilize the “search” function on the side of the page when looking for certain topics.  As always, comments welcome…

2 Comments

Filed under Apologetics, Christianity, The Bible

Tagged as , , , ,

October 25, 2008 · 6:45 pm

Feedback: The Ark of the Covenant; a type of Mary?

This post is in answer to a reader’s comment on Catholic verses? Part 10.  The claims actually come from here: A Biblical Defense of Mary.  The case is put forward that the Ark of the Covenant is a type, or foreshadowing, or symbol, of Mary.

This is not the case.  The Ark of the Covenant is a type of Christ, not of Mary.  This can be seen by examining what the ark was constructed of, and also what is in the ark.

Christ is both human and divine.  The ark is made up of wood, which represents humanity, and it is also made up of gold, which represents the divine.

Many people do not realize what was contained within the ark; The unbroken stone tablets that the ten commandments were written on/into, Aaron’s staff that had budded, and a gold pot full of manna.  Each of these, as well as the ark itself with it’s gold and wood, show forth Christ.

First, the unbroken tablets.  Notice that there were another set of tablets; the originals which Moses broke after coming down the mountain, and the second set which were, and are, unbroken.  The unbroken tablets represent Christ’s perfect keeping of the law; He never sinned and never broke a commandment.  It also represents Christ being the Word of God and keeping the commandments “within” Him.

Second, Aaron’s staff is included.  The budding of the staff represented God’s approval, or pick of Aaron as priest.  Of course, Christ is the High Priest, and God showed Him approval.  Also, the symbolism of the staff budding was something that was “dead” supernaturally coming back to life; a type of Christ’s resurrection.

Third, we have the golden pot full of manna.  Who is the bread of life?  Who is compared to manna?  Christ.

When we look at the Ark as the Ark of the Covenant, that would be the old covenant, we can clearly see that there is a “better” ark representing, being the heart of, fulfilling, providing, the new covenant…and that is Jesus Christ.

Many preachers/teachers have taught on this; Doc Scott amongst them.  This isn’t a new idea originating with me, and even more parallels can be drawn.  Always take an overall look at symbols and types because the detail has to match in the analogy.

1 Comment

Filed under Apologetics, The Bible

Tagged as , , , , ,

September 25, 2008 · 6:34 pm

Catholic verses? Part 4

In the first part, I explained that Marcus Grodi, a convert to the Roman church (RC) and host on The Journey Home, has a list of ten verses that influenced him to consider conversion to the RC.  The fourth verse that he cites is 2 Thessalonians 2:15

2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

First, Marcus jumps on the word “tradition” here and holds that up as proving that we can indeed, and should indeed follow the traditions handed down by the Apostles, even if it was oral.  To that I say, I agree, now tell me how I can hear Paul, Peter, John’s, etc… words that were not written down.  I can’t.

The common response is; well, what about those in the early church who were not apostles who wrote things down? What about them?  We know for an absolute fact that just because a person was taught directly by an apostle, and claims to be a believer that it does not guarantee correct teaching.

The early believers were warned again and again that corruption and false teaching would soon spring up, and we get to see a record of it first hand in Paul’s Letter to the Galatians, which was to a whole group of apostle-taught believers. This is a very very serious matter: Galatians 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Paul goes on to underscore the importance of sticking to the gospel message. Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. To put it in English; if anyone, including an apostle, preaches any other gospel let him be damned.

What else doe Paul have to say? Acts 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. So, how are we to know if someone is speaking, preaching, and teaching truth?  We can emulate the Bereans for one thing: Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. In my last post, I already gave scriptural evidence that certain NT books were already considered scripture in the eyes of early Christians; such as Paul’s epistles.  Assuredly the scriptures spoken of in Acts 17 were OT scripture, but the teaching is sound; search scripture to see if what someone is teaching you conflicts with it.

The emphasis in 2 Thessalonians was on the gospel; the word “tradition” means “that which is given over” in the Greek. 2 Thessalonians 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: 14 Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

The ideas here are that their word lined up with their written word; therefore, there cannot be contradiction between doctrine and scripture and if there is contradiction we should lean on the scriptures.  This idea is a very protestant one.  For example, there was a time in the RC church that people owning their own Bibles in their mother tongue was frowned upon…everything in scripture supports the idea of the truth of scripture, and that is one way we are to test for the truth, hence, I submit that 2 Thessalonians 2:15 in no way lends itself to a RC view.

Tradition can go both ways, it can be a good thing if supported by the truth, or Mark 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye. God inspired tradition lines up with God’s word.

8 Comments

Filed under Apologetics, Conversion, The Bible, Theology, Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , , ,

September 24, 2008 · 1:40 pm

Catholic verses? Part 3

In the first part, I explained that Marcus Grodi, a convert to the Roman church (RC) and host on The Journey Home, has a list of ten verses that influenced him to consider conversion to the RC.  The third verse he talks about is 2 Timothy 3:14-17

2 Timothy 3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. 14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Marcus makes a point that I do agree with, but that doesn’t lend itself to one side or another; protestant nor RC; he says that the scripture refered to in verse 15 would have been the Old Testament (OT).  This is true as far as it goes; the scriptures that they would have known since being children would have only been the OT, since the NT hadn’t yet been written.

However, Marcus then tries to make the point that the scripture mentioned in 16 would be the OT, hence this verse cannot be used to support the more protestant idea of sola scriptura (scripture alone).  This isn’t the case, as he limits the use of scripture only to the OT, and that is not what the verse says, it simply says ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.  That does not exclude the NT; in fact two examples of how this is refuted are below.

Paul, in 1 Timothy 5:18 For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward names the source of these quotes “scripture.”  The first part about the ox is found in OT, Deuteronomy 25:4, and the second part about the labourer is found in the NT books of Matthew 10:10, and Luke 10:7.

Peter, in 2 Peter 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction declares Paul’s epistles “scripture” by referring to “other” scriptures.

Also, this passage in 2 Timothy does underline the importance of scripture.  One big point in protestant circles is that doctrine cannot contradict, or go against scripture.  True doctrine will line up with scripture, not conflict with it, any position that is of the Holy Spirit will not go against scripture, since it too is God inspired.  This is why so many of us Protestants turn to the scripture when looking at doctrine; there are some things that organizational churches do/don’t do that are not referred to in scripture at all…but, these things are different than a doctrine that blatantly contradicts scripture (OT or NT) ; that should not happen.

In short, I see nothing in 2 Timothy 3:14-17 to support an RC position over that of a protestant one, and in fact, these verses highlight the central role of scripture for every believer.

13 Comments

Filed under Apologetics, Conversion, The Bible, Theology

Tagged as , , , , ,

August 5, 2008 · 4:37 pm

The Reliability of the Bible…

One question that comes up in many Apologetics discussions is the reliability of the Biblical manuscripts.  In this post, I am not going to go into detail, as others have already done so.  What I am going to do is give an overview of why this is important, and also give resources for everyone to utilize.

First a word about a common misunderstanding.  Many times, atheists and other non-believers will accuse Christians of circular logic.  They present a straw man which says, “Christians always refer to the Bible as evidence of God, and they use the Bible as evidence for the Bible which is circular.”  Now, I personally haven’t read any Christian doing this; what I do see often is fundamental lack of knowledge on the part of the atheist/non-believer as to what the Bible actually is, and why we cite it as evidence, and why it can indeed be cited as evidence.

The Bible is not a single document.  It is a collection of ancient documents into one binding; there is a distinct difference.  These documents often have different authors and are written at different periods of time; they are not one solid document that someone can accuse of trying to “prove itself.”  This would be like entering into a conversation about the formation and continuation of the United States government.  In this discussion, one person pulls out a book titled: Political Documents of the United States.

Within this single book is a collection of many US documents; The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, The Federalist Papers, The Records of the Continental Congress, etc…  Then, the person they are dialoging with says, “You can’t use that as a reference, or as evidence when talking about the formation and continuation of the US Government!  Political Documents of the United States is just used to prove itself, that’s circular logic!”

So, a basic understanding of the composition of the Bible is needed; it is a collection of manuscripts authored by around 40 human authors (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit).  It’s contents were written over a large span of time, and in different languages, mainly Hebrew and Greek.  Then these manuscripts were collected together into one volume; The Bible.  Using various historical manuscripts to support other historical manuscripts is not “proving itself.”

There is also discussion about how these particular manuscripts made it into the collection.  Many non-believers try to make this into some huge conspiracy, while the Roman church tries to use it as proof that they are the one true church, and them alone; some fundamentalist Christians act as though God handed the KJV in it’s final form to Moses on Mt. Sinai.  The truth is that it was a very organic and logical process, though the inclusion of some of the books were debated.  I just read a good description of the process in Ravi Zacharias’ new book; Beyond Opinion.   In fact, the very first chapter of Ravi’s book is devoted to “Postmodern challenges to the Bible,” written by Amy Orr-Ewing.

In general, certain criteria were met, and as these criteria were met, the books eventually came to be “canonized” formally, though many of the books were already recognized as canon.  (The criteria were things like; authorship by an apostle or an immediate follower of an apostle (which obviously included dating), church usage, etc…)

Are the documents reliable?  Are they accurate?  Can you trust the Eyewitness accounts in the NT? There are many good resources for these questions here are only a few:

Online resource examples;Manuscript evidence for superior New Testament Reliability on CARM,  The Textual Reliability of the New Testament from Tekton, Miscellaneous Questions on the Text of the Old Testament from Tekton, Testimony of the Evangelists by Simon Greenleaf, Archaeology and the New Testament from Apologetics Press,  Is scripture a “faithful record” of historical events? from Apologetics Press, etc… etc…

Other resource examples; The New Testament Documents by F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture by F.F. Bruce, Trial of the witnesses by Thomas Sherlock, General Introduction to the Bible by Geisler and Nix, Can I trust the Bible? by D. Bock & R. Zacharias, and also examples of general resources that touch upon Biblical matters: The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell, The Case for Christ by Strobel, etc… etc…

These resources are for everyone; believers, skeptics, anyone interested in Biblical apologetics.  What I offered here is not even a drop in the bucket of information available on this topic.  One of the most frustrating things in Apologetics can be talking to people who glean all their knowledge of the Bible from proselytizing atheistic websites that have lists of points to try to bring up in a debate.  Why is it frustrating? Because the answers are readily available to all, and are very easy to find, and also it shows, to me, that the person isn’t really wanting an answer, no…they are trying to proselytize their own beliefs.

Take the time to study the Bible.  It can be trusted and is highly reliable; historically, prophetically, internally, archaeologically, etc…  The resources I gave above have many other resources cited in their notes, so, keep digging and studying.  The Bible can stand up to all scrutiny.

8 Comments

Filed under Apologetics, Logic, The Bible, Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

July 24, 2008 · 1:26 pm

Biblical food metaphors…

Have you ever noticed how many times a food metaphor is used in the Bible?  Many times, it isn’t “cream puff” ideas being put forth either…Jesus Himself employed them about various subjects, including Himself.  Why do you think that is?

John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst

Food and drink are two things every human can relate to.  We know what it is like to be hungry and thirsty; these are experiences we’ve all had.  When a food metaphor is used, it is then easy to connect to no matter who you are.

Matthew 5:6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

Food and drink are essential to life.  Food gives us energy, and strength.  It helps us to grow and even to think.  Have you ever noticed that when you are hungry that it is easier to zone out; usually we just concentrate on the rumblings in our stomachs.  When you are thirsty all you can think of is how thirsty you are, how great it would be for a nice cool glass of some kind of sparkling liquid to quench that thirst.

John 4:13 Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: 14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

When Christ was tempted by the devil in the wilderness, one of the outcomes of the isolation was that Jesus was hungry.  Here comes the devil to tempt Him with food.  Command the stones to become bread, the devil prodded.  How did Jesus answer?  Matthew 4:4…Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. The metaphor is doubled when we consider that Christ Himself is the very Word of God.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. 17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

So, that is our answer to getting spiritual food; we turn to the word of God; scripture, and also to The Word of God; Christ.  In the same way that physical food nourishes our bodies, helps us to grow, to concentrate, to be strong…so too does turning to the word and The Word of God.  I’ve mentioned before that I find it interesting that those who do not have a relationship with God; those that are not permanently quenching that thirst, try to quench it through various means, be it with drugs, human relationships, fame, physical food, man-made philosophy, etc…  While in their current lives, these things may add something, we are more concerned with eternal life. It reminds me of the occurrence of pica; the ingestion of substances that don’t really have any nutritional value…such as clay from a river bank.  Often times it gives the impression that one is feeding oneself, it makes you feel full for a time, but in reality, the person is not getting anything from what they are eating.  In fact, their body may be in need of some essential nutrient, but they are not getting it from the substance that they consume.

2 Timothy 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come…. 7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

So, for me, it is clear why food metaphors are used; they are central to the human experience, food and drink are necessary for life, we gather energy and strength from them, and let’s face it, most of us like good food.  Food, in the best of times, also becomes a communal experience, something shared between people.  Food connects us and enhances our lives…so it should be with spiritual food as well.  Just as with physical food and drink, we need to keep part of our minds on our health.  It matters very much what we put into ourselves, what we feed on, what we draw our nutrition from.

1 Comment

Filed under Communion, The Bible, Theology

Tagged as , , , , , ,

July 23, 2008 · 2:21 am

The Codex Sinaiticus Online

Really interesting (and quite a neat) development.  The Codex Sinaiticus manuscripts are going to be brought back together online.  You can read about it here: Scholars plan to reunite ancient Bible — Online.  It’s going to take them about a year to get it all setup and accessible.

Here is the main site: http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/ that will go live on July 24th, 2008…this Thursday.  It will start with The Psalms, and The Gospel of Mark.  The Codex Sinaiticus was written somewhere in the 4th century (300′s AD).  It contains all of the Greek New Testament, as well as portions of the Septuagint; Greek Old Testament.  It is one of the most important documents, or manuscripts, relating to textual criticism (“text crit”) of the Greek OT and NT.

1 Comment

Filed under Apologetics, Of Interest, The Bible

Tagged as , , ,