A large segment of Christianity holds to Sola Scriptura, which is typically defined as the belief that the Bible alone is the final authority for all things related to faith and practice. This view is taught in many Bible colleges and seminaries, and we are taught that it was one of the central battle cries of the Reformation. Holding to Sola Scriptura, men like Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli led the charge against the Roman Catholic Church.

The Reformers were opposed to many abuses within the church, and believed that most of these abuses stemmed from the Catholic Church’s reliance upon tradition for their beliefs, practices, and understanding of Scripture. The Reformers, in trying to correct these abuses, tried to reject tradition and return to the Sola Scriptura,“the Bible alone.”

It’s too bad such a move was impossible.

Sola Scriptura is Impossible

Yes, Sola Scriptura, or “the Bible alone” is an impossible belief. It is doomed from the start. It cannot be held. It cannot be practiced. It cannot be believed. Even if you or your church claims to believe in Sola Scriptura, you actually don’t.

Why not? Because in every area of the Bible, from the writing of the text, to the collection of the books, to the transmission, translation, and teaching of the text, extra-biblical tradition and authority is required.
[Read more…]

When leaders of the early church gathered in 397 AD to select which books should be included in the Bible, one of the things they were trying to do was provide themselves and following generations with an accurate and authoritative collection of books by which we could know the truth of God.

Ironically, they may have ended up doing exactly the opposite.

One of the criteria they used to select which books to include in the Bible is inerrancy. That is, does the book under consideration contain factual or theological errors? If they felt it did, they rejected it.

This practice raises some interesting issues with inerrancy. Let’s look at these below.

What is a Theological Error?

The first issue is how the early church decided what constituted an error. Prior to this time, they did not have an officially recognized or approved list of New Testament books to compare with. All they had were the Hebrew Scriptures of the Old Testament, and their own ideas about what was “correct theology.”

[Read more…]

Yesterday we looked at what I was taught in Bible College and Seminary about “The Canonization of Scripture.” By way of summary, Canonization is the process and standards by which the early church leaders selected which documents to include in the New Testament.

Over the next few posts, I want to question and critique what I was taught, asking the questions about Canonization that I had neither the time nor the courage to ask while in Seminary.

Before I ask these questions, I do want to make it clear that I am personally glad that the early church undertook this process. I agree with their conclusions, and I am glad that we have the 27 books of the New Testament that we do have, and no more.

Having said that, I will show in the next few posts that the process and standards of Canonization undermines nearly everything else we evangelical Christians believe about the Bible, and so we must either change our view on some of these other things (such an inspiration and inerrancy), or we must decide that the process of Canonization was wrong. But we cannot logically maintain everything we have traditionally taught about the Bible and remain consistent.

[Read more…]

Have you ever wondered how we got the Bible that we have? One of the steps by which we got the Bible we have is called the canonization of Scripture.

Did you ever hear that there were other books, letters, and documents that were written near the time the books of the Bible were written, claiming to be by authors like the Apostles Andrew, Thomas, Peter, and Paul,  but which are not found in our Bible?

I own several of these other books and have read them. Many of these books are found in the New Testament Apocrypha. They make for interesting reading. While some of them sound very similar to what we read in the New Testament, most do not, especially some of the stories about the childhood years of Jesus as found in the Gospel of Thomas.

[Read more…]