Tag: bible studies

Posted on

Authority: Are We Worshipping the Bible? By: Doy Moyer

Picture
Sometimes, in discussions of biblical authority, we hear the derogatory charge that those of us who push so hard for authority are guilty of “bibliolatry,” idolizing or worshipping the Bible in particular. Since we put so much stress on the authority of Scripture, are we guilty of promoting Scripture over God Himself? Perhaps the better question is this: what is the relationship of God to Scripture?

Scripture is not simply words in black and white (and red) on a material page. There is nothing authoritative about simple words on a page by themselves. The issue is the source of the message that is written down. If we just coldly isolate the words and demand adherence to them without understanding their true relationship to God, then those who make the charge may have a point. On the other hand, making the charge could also be a subtle way of trying to distance oneself from Scripture. If Scripture really is authoritative because of its relationship to God, then there are restrictions to the way that we may acceptably serve God. If we can remove the restrictions by minimizing authority, then we will feel free to serve God as we please. In this sense, then, this issue may be more about self-will (or self-idolatry) versus God’s will. Who gets to decide how God should be served and worship?

The reason for believing that Scripture is authoritative is because of its relationship to God, not because it is someone’s creed from long ago written on paper. While this article is not about proving inspiration, the point should be understood: if Scripture comes ultimately from God, then it bears His authority. To the extent that Scripture is God’s word, then it is authoritative; if it isn’t His word, then it is no more authoritative than what any of us may come up with and put down on paper. That Scripture is from God is the very point reflected in Paul’s statement about the Hebrew Scriptures:

“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim 3:16-17).

If it falls into that category of “Scripture,” then it is authoritative because it is God-breathed. This is not the worship of the Bible, but rather the worship and service of the God from whom the Scriptures come. Now the question would be this: can we truly serve and worship God when we ignore or minimize the message that He has given? God is directly tied to His own word, and Scripture recognizes this:

“For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two- edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.” (Heb 4:12-13)

Notice in this text how the writer moves from “the word of God” to God Himself. There is really no way to separate the authority of God from the authority of His word. “Then God said” are some of the first powerful words of Scripture (Gen 1), and from this point, “Thus says the Lord” is a continual appeal of the prophets. If the Lord said it, it is authoritative and is not to be ignored. “See to it that you do not refuse Him who is speaking” (Heb 12:25).

The word of God is not to be restricted only to written form, of course. The word of God has been much more than that which is recorded, and not every word God ever spoke (or everything He ever did) is recorded in our Scriptures (cf. John 21:25). Jesus Himself is the Word became flesh (John 1:1, 14). He is God’s message and communication in the greatest sense. But God’s message has been put down in writing, and that message is to be respected as much as anything the prophets, apostles, or even Jesus orally spoke.

The connection of Jesus to His words is vital: “He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day” (John 12:48). If His “sayings” are written down on paper, does that make them any less authoritative and connected to Jesus? The words spoken by Jesus “are spirit and are life,” and He has the “words of eternal life” (John 6:63, 68). Whether these are heard orally or read from a book, they are still His words, His message, and His authority. “Lord, to whom shall we go?”

Indeed, where else shall we go for our authority? Shall we consider our own words more authoritative? Are our writings better than the first century New Testament documents? Where shall we go for the words of eternal life?  Is it worshipping the Bible if we give due respect to these words?

The reality is that if we don’t give Scripture its proper due when it comes to authority (as it is God’s authority), then we aren’t truly worshipping or serving God. To ignore God’s word is to ignore God Himself and give ourselves the authority that only belongs to Him. This isn’t about worshipping the Bible. It is about giving God the proper reverence and respect that only He deserves. We cannot give that respect to Him if we do not pay attention to the message that He inspired to be inscribed with ink on the pages of a material book. The material certainly won’t last, but the word of God will endure forever. If the word of the Lord uses the material for a time, then we are amenable to it and we will be held accountable. The word He spoke will judge us in the last day. Herein is the essence of the need for paying attention to His authority.

via: http://www.mindyourfaith.com/6/post/2013/11/authority-are-we-worshipping-the-bible.html

Posted on

Must Everything Be Specified To Be Authorized? by: Doy Moyer

Picture

In discussions of biblical authority, it is not uncommon for a conversation to zero in the question of specifics. One might argue the need for biblical authority, and another might then reply with questions like this:

Well, where is the authority for a church building?
Where is the authority for song books?
Where is the authority for a song leader?
Where is the authority for multiple cups for the Lord’s Supper?

None of these items are specified in Scripture, so on what grounds can we say they are authorized by Scripture? Sometimes those questions are legitimately coming from those who really desire the information and haven’t understood. At other times, however, those who bring up questions like this are actually making an argument against the need for biblical authority in all that we do. The implied argument is this:

Since we don’t have authority for church buildings and song books, then your argument for the need for authority either 1) shows that you are wrong, or 2) shows that you are being hypocritical. Since you obviously don’t have authority for everything (like buildings and song books), then your “method of establishing authority” is erroneous.

Though it sounds like a serious strike against authority, those who use this point as an argument misunderstand the basic nature of authority, primarily because they are not being consistent with the way communication works in every facet of life. Here, then, is the the question: must everything we do be specified in order to be authorized?

The answer is “no.” Now the question is, on what basis can we argue that we must have authority on the one hand, but we don’t always need specified statements on the other hand? How can something be authorized if it is not specified?

Once again, the answer to this question goes back to the fundamentals of logic and communication. By doing this, we can avoid making arbitrary rules about authority that fit what we like, and instead we can be grounded in the actual communication process that functions logically everywhere. In other words, this is not just some biblical rule we are making up, but rather it is how communication works in all areas and we are simply recognizing its function in biblical application. The beauty of this is that we already know how it works.

Think about the communication process. We have elsewhere pointed out that we make our wills known to others by telling them what we want, showing them what we want, and implying what we expect them to understand. Are there any other ways to communicate without using these? Now then virtually all telling and showing imply other factors that are not specified. For example, if I told my son to take out the garbage, without any further statements, I am implying that he can choose how to do that. Though I didn’t specify every action involved (walk over to the cabinet, open the cabinet door where the trash is, pull the trash out, tie the garbage bag, pull it out of the can, walk to the outside door, open it with your hand, go to the outside garbage cans, open the lid of the one on the right, drop the bag into the big can … you get the idea!), I implied that as long as he does what I asked, he has some freedom in carrying out the task. I don’t need to specify every single action in order to make my will known, and he has some freedom in carrying out my will. Which door he goes out, which hand he uses to open the door, how long he takes to do it, whether he uses a hand truck, etc. are all part of the choices he makes along the way. Without further orders or specifications, these choices were all “authorized” by the simple order to take out the garbage.

This principle falls under the category of what we typically think of as general authority. Something can be generally authorized by a more specific statement. If I tell my daughter, “Go buy some bread,” there are both specific and general indicators. If that is all I said, then there are several actions that are permissible. She may “go” any number of ways: walk, ride a bike, drive a car, etc. She might even be able to purchase a couple of ways: use cash, swipe a debit card, etc. That would depend on what she had or what I give her. She might buy any number of types of bread: wheat, white, sourdough, rye, etc. On the other hand, the situation may imply that I expect a certain type of bread. We might have just run out of wheat bread for sandwiches, and the circumstances show that I am implying that this is what I want her to buy. Even then, when she goes to the store, since I didn’t specify the brand name, she is free to pick up whatever she wishes … unless, of course, we always only buy one brand and she already knows this.

When we communicate, there are many factors that need consideration. What we bring to the table as communicators, and what the recipient of the communication brings to the table need to be factored into the process. Further, the context under which the communication occurred must be considered. Most of this we unconsciously accept and we don’t typically need it spelled out. We already know how it works.

When Scripture commands that we go teach and preach, the general entails the specific ways in which we can fulfill these commands. Whether we walk, ride, fly, or drive, we are still going. The fact that the Lord did not specify this part leaves us open to any number of ways of going. When we know it is the Lord’s will that Christians meet together on the first day of the week, a variety of places to meet are included in fulfilling this. The general nature of the order allows for the options.

We must also be mindful of another important principle that we learn from the communication process: the more specific something is, the less freedom we have; the more general something is, the more freedom we have.

Again, this is not an arbitrary rule for Bible authority, but it is a principle of the communication process. If I tell my wife to buy me a red pen for grading papers, I surely don’t mean to get me a blue one or a black one. Red is specific enough to rule out the other colors for my purposes. On the other hand, if I just asked for any pen, it is general enough to allow for all colors. The principle is fundamental and logical.

The principle works the same in biblical communication. In the Hebrew Scriptures, we find the principle at work. “Gopher wood” was far more specific than “wood.” “Levites” as a term is more specific than “people,” and the family was Aaron is more specific than “Levites” for priests. The specifics of the tabernacle were clear and didn’t allow for much variety. In the New Testament documents, we find the same principle. There are many ways to sing, but “sing” is specific enough to mean just that, as opposed to a more general “make music” (Eph. 5:19). “Fruit of the vine” is more specific than “drink.” “Bread” is more specific than “food.” The principle is logical and found everywhere.

Since not everything must be specified, does all of this mean that we are free to do whatever we want to?

General authority does not equate to “whatever we want.” If the command is general, we must still obey the command within boundaries. Going back to the store with my daughter, I might be general in asking her to buy bread, but she must still buy bread instead of whatever else she wanted. Even if I said, “Buy whatever food you think we might like for dinner,” she still needs to come home with food. A general order allows for more variety in carrying it out, but variety does not mean fundamentally changing what the general order expresses. If I ask for a writing instrument, then a pen or pencil will work, but if someone hands me a rock to write with, the point will have been missed.

Not everything needs to be specified in order to be authorized. Therefore, when some argue that the authority argument insists that everything must be specified, they are misunderstanding the nature of the argument, if not the process of communication. Authority is grounded in fundamental logic and communication. Such communication includes the way we both specify and generalize our desires. God has communicated with us in the same way. Since we already know how it works, we are simply making the application to the communication that comes from Scripture.

Doy Moyer

Via: http://www.mindyourfaith.com/6/post/2013/11/must-everything-be-specified-to-be-authorized.html

Posted on

The Vision of a Blind Man, By: Doy Moyer

Picture
“Why was this man born blind?” the disciples wondered. Was it because he sinned or because his parents sinned? “Neither,” responded Jesus, “but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him.” The man didn’t know that he was about to become the object of a miracle. His purpose now was to display the greatness of God. People knew he was blind from birth; they also knew that one blind from birth doesn’t just start seeing. Jesus spat on the ground, made clay and applied it to the eyes of the blind man. He then instructed the man to go wash in the pool of Siloam. The man went and washed, and came back seeing (John 9:1-7). Oh, is that all?

This event is told in such simple terms — no fluff or pomp added. That in itself is amazing. Doesn’t that suggest that God wants us to be struck by the simple truth? Truth needs no embellishments. It is what it is. The facts themselves are awesome.

Now that’s not the end of the story. People were amazed at what happened. How does a blind man suddenly see? They took him to the Pharisees, who cross-examined him in no kind way; and the man held up quite well. Why? Because he caught vision — not just the ability to physically see, but a vision of who Jesus was: “Since the beginning of time it has never been heard that anyone opened the eyes of a person born blind. If this man were not from God, He could do nothing” (John 9:32-33). The man hit it right on the nose. Not only could he now see, he could now see.

Then there were the Pharisees, demonstrating once again their self-righteous inability to see what was most important. What was their first impression of the One who made the blind man see? “This man is not from God, because He does not keep the Sabbath” (9:16). So much for Jesus — how dare He heal a man on the Sabbath! Some were a little more honest: “How can a man who is a sinner perform such signs?” They basically dismissed the evidence because of their own bias. How did they respond to the man’s point about Jesus being from God? “You were born entirely in sins, and are you teaching us?” So they put him out. How’s that for honesty? They could see, but they couldn’t see.

After the man was put out, Jesus found him again and asked, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” The man responded, “Who is He, Lord, that I may believe in Him?” Jesus said, “You have both seen Him, and He is the One who is talking with you.” The man said, “Lord, I believe.” And he worshiped Him.

The point of this miracle should be clear: Jesus can open our eyes! His power to open the eyes of the physically blind demonstrated His power to open the eyes of the spiritually blind. But we must be willing. Jesus said, “For judgment I came into this world, so that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind.” Some Pharisees asked, “We are not blind too, are we?” Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, ‘We see,’ your sin remains.” What does that mean?

Men are responsible for what they are able to receive and do. But if pride keeps one from receiving truth, he will be condemned. They thought they knew the law concerning the Sabbath better than Jesus, and they condemned Him for healing on that day: “We see.” Therefore, their pride and self-confidence left them condemned. As long as people are proud, self-sufficient, and confident in their own wisdom, they cannot receive forgiveness of sins from God: “your sin remains.” On the other hand, if people recognize their complete dependence upon God and His ways, coming to Him with humble hearts, confessing their ignorance and their sins, God will forgive.

This is where our vision begins. We are blind. We dare not trust our own wisdom and ways. We must see the vision of Jesus, the Great Redeemer and Savior, then respond in faith: “Lord, I believe.” We must worship and praise Him. As we humble ourselves before God, we will begin to see the light of the gospel shining on the path to heaven. But if we think, “we see,” that we have it all figured out by ourselves, the path will remain in darkness. It all starts with an attitude of humility toward God. Let us pray that Isaiah’s prophecy of spiritual blindness be not fulfilled in us (Matt. 13:14-15). Instead, may the Lord say about us, “But blessed are your eyes, because they see; and your ears, because they hear” (vs. 16). What have you seen lately?

Doy Moyer

Posted on

On the use of the term “CoC”, by Doy Moyer

I have noticed many posts and discussions that use “CoC” and similar acronyms in an unfriendly, pejorative way, and I want to make a plea for that kind of thing to stop. Here’s why.

When people speak unkindly of “the CoC” teaching this or that, what exactly do they mean? Sometimes the criticisms reveal more fuzzy thinking than what they believe they are critiquing. For the purpose of clarification, a few questions are in order for the one who does this:

  1. Do you mean the universal church? Keep in mind this universal body would include Paul, Peter, and the rest of the apostles. Is this what you are talking about?
  2. Do you mean a particular local church? If so, then why speak in universal terms? If “the CoC” to which you are referring is local, then indicate this so as not to indict others who attend different congregations.
  3. Do you a mean a physically-assembled congregation? Probably not.

Here’s the problem: to speak of “the CoC” in a way other than the three above is to speak of it in a way that is not found in the Scriptures. Biblically, the reference will be universal, local, or an actual assembly.

“But wait a minute,” someone may object. “I’m talking about the mentality of those in the CoC who demand conformity to their ways of thinking and doing things. I’m talking about a denominational mindset that seems pretty pervasive in churches of Christ.”

Okay, now we are getting somewhere, and I can ask: 

Does this mean that you are distinguishing a universal body called “the CoC” from the universal church found in Scripture? If so, does this mean that you think such people are without Christ and therefore lost? 

Are you talking about everyone who attends where a sign says, “Church of Christ”? 

If yes, then you are using universal language and indicting everyone who so attends. Is this what you are trying to do? I would hope not, for such would hardly be a brotherly response to what you consider to be a real problem. 

If no, then do you think you can be a little more gracious and specific about your references without indicting everyone? Surely you know that not everyone falls under your indictments just because they attend where the sign says “Church of Christ,” don’t you? Or is that what you really think? We need clarification. 

Further: 

  • Do you realize that many of us have been fighting a denominational mindset for a long time?
  • Do you know that many of us have taught sternly against traditionalism? Against exclusive and denominational use of “Church of Christ”? Against any mentality that seeks control beyond a local group? Against an institutional mindset that removes the individual from the “Church” and makes the church some kind of separate, institutional entity?
  • Do you realize that when you use “CoC” as a sweeping generalization and indictment that you lump many people together who have fought the very problems you think that you are now fighting? Do you think that is fair and right?

Do you realize that such broad, sweeping generalizations repeated over and over do more harm than good in this fight? Do you know that you end up alienating brethren by doing this, when these brethren could help in overcoming bad attitudes? Do you think it would be better to be very specific about what you mean? Do you think it would be more loving and fruitful to avoid broad generalizations? 

There are better ways to work toward unity. Can we get past the pejorative uses of acronyms like “CoC,” “NI CoC,” “CENI,” etc.? I hope so, for such labeling helps no one and only further divides. 

May God bless us in our joint work for the Lord and toward unity. May God defeat us when our efforts truly aren’t in line with His will.

%d bloggers like this: