Inerrancy Of Scripture, Part 2

Continuing today to define what inerrancy of the Scriptures is. As most professors of the faith adamantly declare to be true, though are not adequately able to defend their belief, in part because they are only told that the Scriptures are inerrant and infallible and are not taught why Scriptures are or are not inerrant or infallible.

I had defined inerrancy last week but will provide another definition today. It is the view "that when all the facts become known, they will demonstrate that the Bible in its original autographs and correctly interpreted is entirely true and never false in all it affirms, whether that relates to doctrine or ethics or to the social, physical, or life sciences". - P. D. Feinberg

Just for reference, I mentioned last time the view of limit inerrancy to matters of faith and practice. That the Scriptures make no false or misleading statements about matters of faith and practice. 

It is admitted that inerrancy of the Scriptures is not presently demonstrable, nor that it ever will be! Is it any wonder that opponents to the inerrancy of Scripture are skeptical? Yet, many that proclaim the inerrancy and infallibility of their English Bibles don't even realize what the scholars admit!

This brings us to a logical question - why do Bible scholars make this admission? To start, we being the infallible, weak, ignorant and imperfect human beings that we are, are quite limited in two ways:

1) That because of our limited and sinful nature we are prone to misinterpret and come up with incorrect conclusions on all the information that we have gathered to date on the Scriptures; and

2) We do not possess all of the information needed to make the proper interpretation of certain inscriptions and texts. We do not have complete knowledge of the culture, language slang, etc that would aide us to a better understanding and interpretation of the Scriptures. Let me give a couple examples of this.

My first example is found in Isaiah 65:11.

In the KJV one will probably wonder what Isaiah means by "that prepare a table for that troop, and that furnish the drink offering unto the number."

What troop and number is Isaiah referring to? Is it referring to worship of some foreign enemies army? If we look at the Hebrew words for troop (Gad), and number (Meni), we see that their English definition is good and some translations use the words Gad and Meni. Yet, thanks to archeological findings we gain a better understanding and interpretation of what Isaiah was probably saying. It has been discovered that these were the Babylonian and Syrian gods of fortune (Gad), and of destiny (Meni). 

Here we see that while the correct definition of the word is good, the correct understanding of the text was not.

My next example is a controversial passage in the Gospel account that have had many interpretations, some proven to be bogus thanks again to archeology. This passage is Matthew 19:24 - "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle".

The bogus story is that it was in reference to a gate in Jerusalem called "the eye of a needle", but to date no evidence of such a gate exist, therefore it is seen as bogus and story traced back around 300 years ago.

Another theory is that it is simply a writing error by the scribes. The Greek word for camel (kamelos), is very similar to the word for rope (kamilos) and it should read rope instead of camel. The word for rope at the time was in reference some believe to the rope used to anchor a ship, that was often braided and would likely have been of the thickest size of ropes. Which they believe makes sense since some of Jesus' disciples were fishermen. - Theodore R. Lorah 

Some have also suggested that it is an Aramaic wordplay between camel (gamal) and acts of charity (gemiluth).

The Babylonian Talmud has a similar expression, which some say Jesus had in mind, that says, "an elephant cannot pass through the eye of a needle".

So, which is it? Many believe it's hyperbolic language Jesus was employing and that seems reasonable with the context. 

Yet, here are just two of the numerous examples one can find as to why the inerrancy of Scripture cannot be fully demonstrated presently or possibly ever until the Lord's return. As in the first example through the passage of time, archeology was able to correct our understanding of a text and we are confident that others will continue to be unearthed until the Lord's return.

Hopefully this helps you to better understand the reasoning behind the definition I gave at the start - "that when all the facts become known, they will demonstrate that the Bible in its original autographs and correctly interpreted is entirely true and never false in all it affirms, whether that relates to doctrine or ethics or to the social, physical, or life sciences."

I hope you are able to glean a little from this. My hope is to continue on the topic next time. Until then, grace and peace to you.

The Infallibility And Inerrancy of Scripture - An Intro

 I'm starting a series on the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture. Today I'll begin with an introduction. I have found over the years that most people only believe what they are told on any given doctrine. Rarely do people put in the honest hard work required to diligently study what they are told and what they so adamantly believe to be unquestionable truth because their preacher, their peers, their "church", denomination, non-denominations, etc state that it's truth. If your faith, your Christianity is dependent on such, then you are not in a place in your walk with Christ that you should be. Who or what people are truly passionate about shows. I'm sure you will learn plenty that you have never know before about Scripture. Of a truth, what I will be talking about during this series will unfortunately shipwreck the faith of some, even some who believe they are strong and well learned in the faith. I know many who have taken this journey and ended up on the rocks. So if you are not sure if your faith is genuinely rooted and grounded in Christ, then this series is not for you. If you can honestly say that you believe in God and His only begotten Son Jesus, regardless, even if you have no Scripture to back it up like Abraham, the father of our faith, and others like Abel, Enoch, Noah, and Job, who did not have the written Word of God, yet believed. If you have a faith like their's in the living God, then set your sails for uncharted (to you) waters!

Many are surprised that most doctrines that we have been taught and led to hold tight and dear to our heart have come about in the past 500 years or less, out of the Reformation movement. For example, the doctrines of the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture came about during the 18th to 19th centuries in the aftermath of the Enlightenment or Modernist movement.

What do the theological terms "infallibility" and "inerrancy" of the Scripture mean in simple terms?

Inerrancy is the belief that the Scriptures are without error or fault in all its teaching. [Defending Inerrancy: Affirming the Accuracy of Scripture for a New Generation]

Infallibility is the belief that the Scriptures are completely trustworthy as a guide to salvation and the life of faith and will not fail to accomplish its purpose. [Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms]

Much of what has been taught or promoted on the inerrancy of Scripture in recent decades comes from the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy which was formulated by more than 200 evangelical leaders at a conference held in Chicago in October of 1978. 

At this conference they admit that, "Inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographed text of Scripture." What they are saying is that there is no error in the original manuscripts penned by the inspired apostles or writers of what we have come to accept as the cannon of 27 books of the New Testament. Since no original manuscripts or autographs exist went on to say, "The autographic text of Scripture...in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy." This is where the study of Scripture and other available manuscripts, known as textual criticism, comes into play. 

While what came forth from the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy is popular and seem to be what most I talk with believe, though most don't realize the original manuscripts the Bible they read from don't exist. They always seemed shocked at this revelation. Probably because their preachers don't tell them the full truth, if they even know it.

Another common view is know as limited inerrancy. In this view they limit the Scripture's inerrancy to matters of faith and practice. That the Scriptures make no false or misleading statements about matters of faith and practice.

Well I did say this is an introduction, so I should bring it to a close until next time. I hope this has whet your appetite on learning more about what is known as the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture.

The Evangelist Philip Is Our Model - Plus, Our Call To Be "Fishers Of Men"?

I would like to start this article with an apology. The article is a bit choppy in my opinion. Though I believe it will get some wheels turning in every one's mind that reads it to research more on some of the points or questions that I have raised. So let us begin!

When looking at the "office" or "position" of an evangelist(s) it is best to look where we first find the word, as mentioned previously in the introduction, is only found three times in Scripture. The first in reference to Philip, who is the only person ever specifically identified as an evangelist in Scripture (Acts 21:8)

We first see Philip in Acts chapter 6 as one of the seven men chosen to distribute care to the Grecian widows.  Chapter 8 is the only place we see him function as an evangelist. 

What is an evangelist? An evangelist (Greek - euaggelistes - S# 2099) is a bringer of good tidings, a messenger of the good news (gospel) of salvation through Jesus the Christ. Part of an apostle's work was that of an evangelist as seen in Paul who preached the gospel (Acts 14:15; 16:10; 17:3; Rom. 1:15; 15:20; 16:25; 1 Cor. 1:17; 23; 15:1; Gal. 1:15-16; Eph. 3:8; 1 Th. 2:9; 1 Tim. 2:7; 2 Tim. 1:11). We also see that Timothy was called to do the "work or function" as an evangelist (2 Tim. 4:5).

We often hear and have been taught that all followers of Christ are called to do the "work or function" of an evangelist - one who preaches the good news of salvation through Jesus the Christ. Yet, show me just ONE NT verse were this is taught? In Ephesians 4:11 where we find the word "evangelist" - would be best translated from the Greek, as some do, "and some as proclaimers of good news," which makes sense. Not all, but God gave gifts (v. 8) to some to proclaim the good news. 

The "great commission" was given to the apostles only (Mt. 28:16-19; Mk. 16:14-15; Lk. 24:33, 44-49). Teachers tell us the "great commission" has been given to us, that none of us are exempt from this "commission", even though the these texts don't hint to such. Neither do we see the apostles giving the new believers in Christ such a commission. Also, we are taught we are called to be "fishers of men", even though this is what Jesus had said to some of His disciples who later became apostles that were "fishers of fish" by trade (Mt. 4:18-22). Nowhere else in Scripture do you find anyone else called to be "fishers of men", yet it is often our charge when evangelism is taught. How many of us have fallen for this line, hook and sinker? Let's not forget Acts 1:6-14 and Christ's "commission" to the apostles who were the only ones assembled to receive His charge.

Believers are told to be ready to give and answer to every man that asks you for a reason of the hope that is in you (1 Pet. 3:15). Yet, where in Scripture do we find all believers were sent out to preach the gospel? (Rom. 10:14-15) We are told as we leave the doors of the "church" building that we enter into "our mission field". We won't find that in Scripture, though it is often said and can be found above the exit at some "church" buildings. Just think of all that is taught on evangelism, that ALL believers are called to preach the gospel, or "share the gospel" - a phrase not even found in Scripture, possibly 1 Peter 3:15, or Eph. 6:15 being the closest thing to that line of thought in the NT or even 2 Cor. 5:18, though none of the three say we are all called to preach the gospel. The light of our good works and love we have for one another are to be a witness to others that we are Christ's (Mt. 5:13-16; Jn. 13:34-35). We see from history that it was the early Christian's witness that was noticed - their good works in love to others that set them apart and drew others to Christ, as well as their refusal to worship the emperor of Roman which brought persecution. In the context of one of the most memorized verses (Jn. 3:16), we find in the verses following (17-21) that light exposes darkness. As in the book of 1 John, pretty much throughout that book John talks about our Christian walk in light and love. We also see that Ephesians chapter 5, walking in light and love reproves those that walk in darkness as also seen in John chapter 3 and the book of 1 John. Let's not forget 1 Peter chapter 4, verses 1-5 and how our walk is seen as strange to those walking in darkness. That we are living epistles, known and read of all men (2 Cor. 3:2).

A common OT verse used for the charge of evangelism is Prov. 11:30 - "and he that winneth souls is wise." This could apply to saving believers that have gone astray into error (Jam. 5:19-20; Jude 1:23) as well as unbelievers. Though Prov. 11:30 doesn't necessarily imply that ALL believers be engaged in winning souls, unless you add to it. This might be a worthwhile study for you to embark upon and not something I plan to look at length in this series.

Moving back to Philip, his ministry is found in the eighth chapter of Acts. In it we see that Philip went to each place alone at first, though in Samaria when they believed the gospel, John and Peter came up to minister the Spirit, etc (Acts 8:14-17), and it's quite possible that Philip, Peter and John travelled together preaching the gospel in many villages in Samaria before parting ways, where Philip once again is alone to meet the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:25-39), where Philip heads out alone preaching in all the cities of Azotus before making his home in Caesarea (Acts 8:40; 21:8). Does that mean they always go out alone? Jesus sent them out 2 by 2 (Mk. 6:7, 12). Even in the book of Acts on their "missionary travels" they always went in at least pairs (Acts 13:2-3; 15:35-41). One could conclude that those engaged in an evangelistic type ministry often do so in pairs and at times alone. Therefore the thought that a "single evangelist" is ordained over a Body of believers is foreign to Scripture.

Which brings up another question, "How long does an evangelist, or those doing the "function or work" of one remain in one location? 

Again, the only true evangelist noted in Scripture is Philip. From his "ministerial deployment" when persecution hit the believers in Jerusalem he went to the city of Samaria and preached. Philip seemed to be there a short time before the apostles heard about the Samaritans receiving the gospel and came to the city. As noted earlier, they were there a brief time before preaching in many villages in Samaria on their return to Jerusalem. No long term stays are apparent. (vs 5, 14-15, 25) Then the Lord sent Philip to Gaza for a brief encounter with the Ethiopian eunuch (v. 26). Afterwards Philip preached in all the cities of Azotus, until he came to Caesarea (v. 40) as mentioned earlier. Nowhere does anyone that I'm aware of believe that Philip stayed at any length in any of the cities or villages he preached in until he came to Caesarea. 

Looking into Paul's letters to Timothy and Titus we learn that Paul left/sent Timothy to Ephesus and Titus to Crete for a very short period of time to aid in establishing the assembly of believers there. If they are "evangelists" as the some like to claim, then they are still not following the NT pattern!

"Evangelists" remain at congregations for years, or even as a popular "evangelist" told me, for decades, citing Philip at Caesarea where there is nothing known about the congregation there, let alone what, if any, role Philip would have had in it. Therefore using Philip at Caesarea as an "evangelist" heading up the congregation there for years are simply things cooked up in the imagination of their own hearts and are vain and not Scriptural. As a popular slogan in the Church of Christ declares, "Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent." Not so in this case as is evident! It is a clear case of eisegesis on their part.

Also, if "evangelists" were to head up the local assembly (for years), why do we not find this pattern in Scripture? Look at Acts 14:23 where Paul and Barnabas returned to Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch, ordaining or appointing elders in every congregation, and then left. Notice what is missing? They, being apostles, didn't appoint (an) "evangelist(s)" and elders in EVERY CONGREGATION,  only elders. If "evangelists" are to head up every congregation, why would they not appoint this essential piece? 

Again, Paul instructs Titus to ordain or appoint elders in EVERY city (Titus 1:5). Notice again that Paul does not mention the ordaining or appointing in every city of "evangelists!" If "evangelists" are the essential piece in leading the congregation to grow in the Lord, why aren't they even mentioned by Paul? Could it be that some have been led astray with false doctrine? I believe so.

It's the elders who are called overseers that are to feed the flock (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:1-4), they are the ones that watch over their souls (Heb. 13:17).

An "evangelist" on the other hand as I've shown previously is a proclaimer of good news. No other functions do we have for an "evangelist" apart from leading others to salvation in Christ. Yet, some have corrupted the Scriptures in applying duties of an elder to an "evangelist." 

One last example from Scripture, if "evangelists" were to lead congregations and play an essential part in the feeding and governing of every assembly, why were they not mentioned at a crucial time in "church" history where Jewish converts were trying to put a yoke of bondage on the Gentile converts in Acts chapter 15? Who were assembled to decide what the practices should be for those Gentile converts? "Evangelists?" No! It was the apostles and elders! (vs. 3-4, 6, 22-23)

Many years later when Paul returned to Jerusalem to worship. Many of the unbelieving Jews were ready to kill Paul because they believed he was teaching Gentile converts to forsake Moses and not to follow after their customs. So in whose presence did Paul receive counsel from on how to conduct himself in this manner? The "evangelists?" No! Once again it was the apostles and elders! (Acts 21:18)

If the "evangelist" is a central and essential piece in the spiritual growth and governance of every assembly as some claim, why were they absent in the last two examples noted above? I think you see the pattern. They do not hold the prime position that some teach that they do.

Therefore the idea of some today that an evangelist is sought out by an eldership, or committee to put on a performance or two before the flock to determine whether or not they like his style enough to anoint him as the new face of their "church" in the community to lead them for years to come is not found in the example of Philip, nor in Scripture. Yet this pattern had to come from some where, right? All things Bible? Maybe not!

The Evangelist. An Introduction

Continuing on the path of apostles and prophets, I can't help but make a stop at the office or position of the ministry of and evangelist. My focus will be more on what some people make up an evangelist to be based on one verse, namely, 2 Timothy 4:5 -

 5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.

The word "evangelist(s)" only appears in Scripture three times - in Acts 21:8, in reference to one of the first seven deacons - ministers - servants in Jerusalem (Acts 6:1-5), which is the ONLY time anyone is called an "evangelist" in Scripture.

In Ephesians 4:11, which has been the starting point for my discussion on the ministry gifts, which this verse only tells us what gifts the Lord has given to equip the Body with.

The other verse where "evangelist" is used is in the verse I'm addressing today, 2 Timothy 4:5. As I mentioned at the start of this article, some use this verse to claim that Timothy was an "evangelist" because in most translations it has Paul telling Timothy to do the work of an "evangelist". Therefore they conclude that everything Timothy is instructed to do is what all "evangelists" are called to do. 

While this view of Timothy is not uncommon, there are two other views of him which are believed: like the most common, that Timothy and Titus are pastors. Which is why the epistles that bear their names are referred to as the "pastoral epistles". 

The other view is that Timothy is a special representative, delegate, emissary of Paul sent to Ephesus.

I have discussed 2 Timothy 4:5 with preachers who are called "evangelists" and not one has any Scripture to support their teaching that their congregation and those associated with them claim is how the congregation is set up to operate, that is, with an "evangelist" at the head. 

Some arguments they tell me are:

1. The "evangelist's" role is to see to public reading of Scripture and prayer; and
2. "Evangelists" we're given commands for oversight of the public service - which is why Paul sent "evangelists" to congregations who had shepherds, but were without an "evangelist".

As I had stated, there is no Scripture that implies these two above arguments. The first argument is based on Paul telling Timothy to "give attention to reading". (1 Tim. 4:13) Though the role of "public prayer" isn't found in the epistles to Timothy, unless one claims 1 Tim. 2:1-4 is an instruction for "public prayer", though it seems to simply be Paul's charge to Timothy to pray for all people.

Why did Paul write these letters to Timothy? In 1 Timothy, to deal with problems that had arisen in the Ephesian church, such as false doctrine (1:3-7; 4:1-3; 6:3-5), disorder in worship (2:1-15), the need for qualified leaders (3:1-14), and materialism (6:6-19). In 2 Timothy, where some believe Paul, aware that his end was near, passed his "apostolic mantle" of ministry to Timothy (2:2) and exhorted him to continue faithful in his duties (1:6), hold on to sound doctrine (1:13, 14), avoid error (2:15-18), accept persecution for the gospel (2:3, 4; 3:10-12), put his confidence in the Scripture, and preach it relentlessly (3:15-4:5)

I will bring this introduction part on the "evangelist" to a close for this week. I hope it has helped to wet your appetite on the "evangelist" and cause you to start digging into your view and what you have been led to believe by those that have trained you up in the milk of the Word and hopefully into a soldier of the cross (2 Tim. 2:3), able to eat the solid food (Heb. 5:12-14; 1 Pet. 2:2) of the Scripture of Truth (Dan. 10:21)