My response to Stephen... a healthy debate

Your blog was well written. For the sake of this argument, I am only going to address the canonization of the NT.

 In my point about canonization as affirmed by the church I, in no way, am saying that the church is infallible. The Word of God is, however, infallible. Again, the church did not choose (and had no say in) what books were Scripture. Scripture, by it's very nature, reveals itself to be Scripture, they merely recognized it to be so. Were they right? I believe they were absolutely correct. Though the canon was not officially confirmed until the 4th century, most scholars believe that it was widely accepted in the late 2nd century. Assuming that timeframe, there was a 100 year period in which the 27 books of the NT were compiled and distributed and a 200 year period in which they were put to practice. To be sure, during that timeframe other books were considered for canonization, but ultimately revealed themselves to not be Scripture and were rejected as such. The 27 books that we have as the NT canon were widely received to Scripture and affirmed officially by the church in the 4th century. We must remember that there is wisdom in numbers.

With regard to authorship, I do not believe that any letter could be 100% verified as authentic, so the argument is moot. For the sake of debate let's assume it can be verified. If I understand your argument correctly, the summary of your point is that the "lost letters" should be included because Paul, as an apostle, was the author. I do believe in apostolic authority, but I do not feel it applies to everything that they write/say. Most scholars believe that Paul, himself, compiled his letters that were circulated as scripture. The fact that he did not include those letters (or more details about them than we already have) in his compilation should weigh heavily on the decision to include the lost letters as Scripture or not. Other factors of canonization aside, let's assume we find a letter of Paul addressed to Barnabas on the subject of items needed for their missionary journey. Should it be included as Scripture just because Paul was the author? I think the obvious answer is no.

In conclusion, let me restate part of my original post. I do feel that the "lost letters" would be beneficial and should be highly regarded if ever found. Bit they should not be considered on the same level as Scripture.

Hypothetical Question...

As part of my New Testament class this semester, we were asked a question about the "lost" letters of Paul mentioned in 1 Corinthians and 2 Corinthians. The question was meant to get us to interact with an assertion made by the author of our textbook that if the "lost" letters were found, they should not be included in scripture. My answer is below. I was on the side of it shouldn't be included in Scripture. Some in my class said it should. What do you think?

"If one of Paul's letters to the Corinthian church were to be found, to be sure, the question on whether or not it should be included in the canon would be a weighty one. The hypothetical situation, however, allows us to think about difficult subjects and form real opinions without any real consequence. While I can appreciate others' point of view of including it in the canon, I feel that the author is correct in that it should not be included.

First, we must consider the valid points made by the author. If Paul was indeed the one that put the collection of his letters together, then the fact that he, himself, did not keep it in his collection should give us a solid reason to not include it. Additionally, God did not see fit for it to be in our canon. We must recognize that the church did not decide what books were Scripture and what books were not, but they recognized that certain books were Scripture and merely affirmed the books that revealed themselves as canon.

Secondly, we must consider some additional points. One of the conditions of a book being considered for part of the canon was widespread acceptance by the early church. Since the early church did not have access to this letter, there was no widespread acceptance and therefore the letter would not meet that condition. Additionally, it is my opinion that the "lost" letters, at least in part, are actually in our canon. The whole reason that we know of Paul's "lost" letters is because of the fact that he mentioned them in the letters that are in Scripture. The parts that he (and ultimately God) saw fit for inclusion in Scripture have been preserved as part of 1 and 2 Corinthians. From what was preserved we see that Paul addressed sexual immorality in the "previous letter" and other failures in the "painful letter". 1 Corinthians contains the equivalent of 5 verses summarizing or further emphasizing the "previous letter". Though not as detailed as the information in 1 Corinthians about the "previous letter", we see in 2 Corinthians that the "painful letter" did cause the church "godly grief" that lead them to repentance.

Finally, we must again consider a valid point by the author. It would be extremely difficult (if not impossible) to prove, with certainty, that the "lost" letter is authentic. Given the importance and power of Scripture, if something cannot be verified without a doubt, then it certainly should have no place in Scripture.

Simply put, if the "lost" letters of Paul were to be found, they should be held as informative and beneficial, but they should not be considered as part of Scripture."

Should it be included in Scripture? or merely viewed as informative and beneficial?

The Inerrancy of Scripture... proper interpretation returns no error

There is a certain doctrine that is foundational to the Christian faith. There is no room in Christianity outside of full belief in this doctrine. Is it the most important doctrine in Christianity? No. Can one call himself a Christian and not believe in this doctrine? Yes, but. Is someone a Christian that does not believe in this doctrine? I don't see how it is possible. Is it the most important doctrine in Christianity? No,but it is foundational and is a basis by which other doctrines are upheld. The doctrine to which I am referring is that of the inerrancy of scripture.

I am unashamedly an inerrantist, so some might be surprised with what I have to say next. There are discrepancies in scripture. Again, I affirm that I am an inerrantist. I believe that the Word of God as we have it today is perfect. I believe that it is God-breathed, that it is profitable for teaching, and all areas of life. Scripture is reliable, but some passages seem irreconcilable.

I grew up in church, learning about the inerrancy of scripture was part of life. I've always believed that scripture was perfect. At times I've been witness to preachers pounding their lecturns, symbolizing pounding this truth into my brain. So imagine my surprise when I was asked a question about Judas and who exactly purchased the potter's field. In Acts 1:18 we hear that it was purchased by Judas himself and in Matthew 27:6,7 we hear that the potter's field was purchased by the chief priests. How can they both be correct? One obviously has to be wrong. Doesn't that make scripture errant?

If you are as I was when I  first heard about this all of those years ago, your brain might be wrinkled right now. I believed that scripture was inerrant because that is what I was told all of my life, but I never really had that belief tested. I attempted to say that there must have been some mistake in the translation of that particular version of the Bible, but soon found out that it wasn't just that translation with the error. For a little while I was bothered by this. Was what I grew up believing wrong? (Obviously not!!!).

My mistake was several fold. First, I thought that this was a really big deal when it really has very little theological consequence. Second, I attempted to explain it away with an answer that was as leaky as a $2 rowboat. Third, I assumed that I HAD to explain it.

The vast majority of scripture does not pose any problem within itself and, given the amount of manuscripts available and the general agreement between manuscripts, even the toughest of critics must agree that the Bible is reliable. Those critics, however, would stop short of saying it is inerrant. One that takes a critical look at the evidence, though, must admit that the Bible is reliable. Since the Bible is reliable, when one sees what the Bible proclaims about its inerrancy, he must rightly conclude that the Bible is inerrant.

For the Christian, the proof goes even further. Not only do we see the claim made by the Bible and believe it to be so, we also know the character of God and trust in Him and His promises (since God is God, no other "proof" is necessary" but if you will indulge me a bit more I promise we'll wrap this up soon).

The Word of God, properly interpreted and applied, will return no error. When reading the Bible, one must consider what the authors' intentions are. The authors are not necessarily going to be as specific as we would like with every detail that is recorded especially if it has no impact on the main point of the text. It was (and is) common practice to use generalizations or exaggerations to emphasize a point. Doing so does not change the meaning of what is written or mean there is an error; it just reflects the beauty of Scripture as literature.

In conclusion we see that, for the Christian, there is not, nor should ever be, any question as to the inerrancy of Scripture. God is God, and Scripture, being the Word of God, must be inerrant. For the skeptic, the question of its inerrancy is also moot; the Bible has been proven reliable, therefore its intrinsic claims of inerrancy must be believed. As a final answer to both the Christian and the skeptic, when the meaning of the text is correctly interpreted, and when literary styles are taken into account, the seeming "inconsistencies" in scripture are quickly reconciled. Praise God for His Word!

The Theology of a Child... lessons about God from the mind of a child

Working from home has it advantages and disadvantages. One thing that I really enjoy is being home when my kids wake up for the day (I start work at 7am and I am often the only one awake for 1.5-2 hours). Today my daughter, Karis, woke up, came into my "office" and sat on my lap as I was answering emails. After she settled in, she looked outside at the sunshine, trees, and North Carolina red-clay in our back yard. After a few minutes, Karis looked at me and said "God turned the sun on." (My wife, Sarah, and I have, at times, told her that God turns the sun off so that when we lay her down at night she won't be as afraid of the darkness in her room, but this is the first I have heard her say that God turned the sun on.)  Immediately my "sophisticated" mind started thinking. I wanted to explain to her that the sun is always on, that the world turns and that causes us to have day and night.

Then... it hit me... Karis was right! God did turn the sun on. As I thought about it, I realized that God, long ago, turned the sun on. In Genesis we read that on the first "day" there was only darkness; God said "let there be light" and there was! With those four simple words, God turned the sun on. This first day of the seven days of creation (and yes I believe it is a literal 7 [24-hr] days) was an amazing thing. God said "let there be light" and the sun, a burning ball of gas that is 93million miles away from the earth, formed out of nothing. God's power is extensive! Out of nothing creation, including the sun, came to be!

In addition to the initial "turning on" of the sun, God turns the sun "on" every day. God, the creator of everything, saw fit for the earth to spin (I won't pretend to be smart here and try to talk about the benefits of a revolving earth, suffice it to say that it is essential that the earth spins on an axis) and it is by His sovereign will that the earth continues to spin. The earth will continue to spin until He sees fit to bring this world to an end. And what is even more impressive is that He determined the number of days that the sun would "rise" before He spoke it into existence.

Each new day is a gift from God. God turned the sun on and gave us another day to praise Him and serve Him. It is by His sovereign will that the earth continues to spin and give us new days, and the reason that it still spins is because he is not finished with us yet. God has ordained each and every day and each and every detail for this earth until the time that He will create a new heaven and new earth. If you doubt that God pays attention to detail, you need to read passages in scripture that speak on how much He cares for this world. We read that a sparrow will not fall to the ground without God knowing about it. We read that God knew us while He knit us together in our mother's womb. We also see that God knows the number of hairs on our heads (and not everyone's hair is as easy to count as mine!). And it is because of His attention to detail that we know that God is working in everything for His will to be executed. This is not to say that freewill doesn't exist. Somehow, God works freewill and His sovereignty together for His purposes. (I will not attempt to try to fully understand God because His knowledge and wisdom are beyond measure.) Each day exists so that God's will can be executed.

In Karis' simple recognition that God turned the sun on there was a huge amount of theology. God is all powerful: He made the sun out of nothing with four simple words, God is sovereign: the number of days that the sun "rises" has been ordained before there was time, and God's will is perfectly executed: He works in even the minutest of details so that His will is perfectly executed. I pray for more insight into God brought on through the mind of a child.

A Plea to Worship Leaders...a concerning trend in corporate worship

As my family and I have been searching for a church to call home, we've encountered a vast array of believers gathered to worship. We've been to church bodies that met in buildings that were built in the mid 1800s that housed 100 people (uncomfortably), to church bodies of about 30 people meeting in a storefront, to church bodies consisting of thousands of members meeting in a multi-million dollar facility (and that was just the cost of the "kids" wing). The worship services varied almost as much as the actual facilities that the church bodies met in. We found ourselves turning through the Baptist Hymnal to Hymn number 345 while being prompted to only sing the 1st, 2nd, and 5th stanzas or staring up at big projection screens to sing the words of the latest praise and worship songs. The beauty is, we were worshiping in both of those scenarios.

Unfortunately, the converse is also true. Some of the places that we have been consisted of worship, through singing, that was distracting. I am a musically inclined person and enjoy a good rhythm (perhaps that's my bass playing instinct coming out), beautiful melody, and theologically sound lyrics (after all, it can't be true worship if it isn't theologically sound), but in several different situations I found myself distracted. The distraction is the worship... worship that has given in to a new trend; that trend is a re-focusing of attention to people rather than God.

The chief purpose of worship is to make much of God and nothing of ourselves. It is because of who He is that we worship Him and it is because of what He has done that enables us to worship Him. Therefore, it is my belief, that worship should be focused solely on God. I know I am not alone in my view, and I feel like my view is the majority view, but nonetheless the trend seems to be gaining popularity.

In the books Why I Left the Contemporary Christian Music Movement and Can You Rock the Gospel? the gist of the authors' theses is that modern music should not be used in worship. I do not agree with that point, but I understand where it comes from. In several worship services that I have attended, my heart has sank as the lights over the "audience" have been turned off while the lights on the stage have been turned up. I feel that action tends to lend itself to more of a "concert" type atmosphere and (whether sub-consciously or consciously) focuses our attention to the stage rather than to God. The action of changing the lights has mostly been followed by a lead singer with a "concerty" voice playing a distorted guitar and, at times, the "concerty" thing of the lead singer starting a verse then backing off of the microphone so the audience can continue the verse. Or he will say things like "clap your hands with me" or "you sing" during breaks in the singing. These would be enjoyable and not distracting if I was at a concert, but in worship they are detrimental.

Our attention in worship is to be focused solely on the Creator. Anything less is not true worship because we are, in effect, worshiping something else.

My plea to worship leaders, whether as a pastor/minister or member serving in some type of worship leadership, is that you make every effort to lead others into worship of God. However that looks to you in your particular situation I pray that God be glorified through our corporate worship of Him.

Surrender...our necessary response

I (thankfully) have had a lot of time lately to reflect on God's Word and dive into some of my favorite passages that speak to salvation, sanctification, and glorification. As you might imagine, the layers of scripture within these passages creates a need for the reader to acquire scuba gear to get to the deepest parts. Nonetheless, if one spends time diving in (pun intended!) the truth and beauty of the gospel is revealed in a whole new way... kind of like seeing it in high-def as opposed to standard definition.

My goal over the past few months has been to get a deeper understanding of God and salvation. While I still have a lot to learn, there have been some good reminders and deeper understanding of truth in light of the gospel. One theme that resounds throughout the topics of salvation and sanctification is "surrender".

The way I understand salvation is that no man can be saved unless if God draws him near. God softens man's heart, and the necessary response of the softened heart to its Creator is surrender. God's grace is irresistible; this grace is offered freely, and is an important part of Christianity.

For the Christian, the single most important event in history is the death and resurrection of Christ. Without Christ's victory over sin and death there would be no hope for a sinner like me. Once I truly identify with Christ and trust in his substitutionary payment for my sins, I am saved. Christ surrendered himself on my behalf; His righteousness is now imputed to me. It is a humbling thing to ponder.

After salvation, God begins sanctifying (setting apart) His newly adopted child. The only effort that we must give toward our sanctification is the surrender of our will. God even works in us to bring us to a point where we can surrender! It is important to note that surrender is not a one time event. The Christian must daily surrender his will to the Father and put the sin-nature to death that wars within. But surrender is crucial to the spiritual health of a Christian; God begins sanctifying His saints when they say "Not my will, but Yours." By grace, God freely gives that which is necessary for everything that sanctification calls me to. And thank God for that grace because the sanctification process is a continual cycle of surrender and growth; the cycle is never complete on this side of eternity.

Again, there is so much that I don't know, but I am excited about the portions of the gospel that have been further defined. I hope to learn more and that you were encouraged by some of the truths seen here.

Hello out there...is this thing on?

Hey there!. My name is Jonny. I am 27 years old  I'm a  husband, Dad, Christian, and pursuing vocational ministry. My family and I recently moved to Wake Forest, NC so that I can focus on obtaining a M.Div from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. In order to pay tuition and "make ends meet" my wife is now working outside of the home for the first time since our daughter was born in 2008. I work from home, take a good portion of classes from home, and watch the kids when my wife is working, so I don't really get out too often. So... all of that understood... this blog is kind of a way for me to have a connection with the outside world.

My hopes are that this blog will somehow be encouraging as I share some of the things that God puts on my heart, share some life experiences, and attempt to not succumb to "cabin fever" by exercising my mind in this fashion. Feel free to drop me a line in the "comments" section. I'm looking forward to this thing!