“Then I disagree with Paul” The other members of the Bible reading seminar gasped in dismay.
We are using the Gospel of Luke in a seminar following-up the initial six sessions on “How to Read the Bible More Effectively.” We have tried to confine our references to Luke, contending the Bible will be its own instructor so long as we read it carefully. Basically restricting ourselves to the one book illustrates our thesis and simplifies matters for those not familiar with finding Bible passages.
An issue has been persistently raised by one attendee, however, which is not commented on in Luke but is answered directly by Paul in the epistles. He brought it up again the other night and would not let it rest. After 40 sessions together, we have become fairly relaxed with each other so we asked the group if they wanted the Bible answer to this point so we could put it behind us. Following a unified “Yes!” each person was assisted to find the relevant passages in I Corinthians and I Timothy.
The verses were read from more than one version by members of the group. There could be no doubt as to the Bible answer. Only two options were left for the person raising the issue: change his idea or claim Paul was wrong. He chose the latter. His contention was that, along with Paul, he was a sincere servant of God and was just as inspired as the apostle.
Fitting a pattern
In discussing the Truth, we have consistently found that, given enough time, we can prove that our beliefs are clearly verified by the Bible. A person is then confronted with an option -accept the Truth or deny the authority of the Bible.
Several times, for example, we have come to this turning point with friends who believe in the immortality of the soul by referencing the passages in Ecclesiastes about the state of the dead. The references are so clear that one must accept them or claim Ecclesiastes is in error. The standard answer we have received from immortal soulists is that Ecclesiastes is not accurate. It is based, they say, on what a human can conclude from human experience and includes no reference to an after life. Of course, that is not true as evidenced by several passages in the book (Eccl. 3:17; 8:12-13; 12:14).
We feel the common denominator that separates us from every other belief system is that we accept the whole Bible and only the Bible as being the inspired revelation of God. We reject the ex officio authority of the papal chair, ordained committees, private interpretations, the Koran, the Book of Mormon or any writings, apart from scripture, that claim to be inspired. Further, we reject the notion that parts of the Bible are not reliable through corruption of the text or because the human instrument used by God was in some way biased.
Attitude to human writings
We highly value some books of human authorship, but we use them solely to help us understand and complement the Bible. Our typical attitude is beautifully expressed by Bro. Robert Roberts when commenting on Eureka by Bro. John Thomas. “If you desire to see the matter thoroughly and vigorously done [Revelation expounded], I cannot do better than refer you to Eureka, Dr. Thomas’s exposition of the Apocalypse, in three volumes…Do not be tempted to think that we lean upon a man’s judgment in the matter. Dr. Thomas not only gives you his conclusions but the reasons which have led him to those conclusions. We are thus able to make his conclusions our own by a process which makes us independent of all men as to the ground on which we hold them. The best proof of the soundness of the views advanced by Dr. Thomas lies in this, that once a reader is directed by him to the Bible and becomes a Bible student, he can dispense with Dr. Thomas’ books altogether so far as steadfastness of conviction is concerned. The Bible nourishes that conviction from day to day. It is not like Sweden borgianism and some other systems in which you have to keep reading the books to keep ‘posted’ in the system. The Bible keeps you ‘posted’ in the Truth, if you never read another line of the man who may have directed you to it in the first instance. My own experience is an illustration of this. I read Elpis Israel 27 years ago; I read it only once; I have never read it since; but I have read the Bible daily all the time since and have remained of one judgment with Elpis Israel in consequence…The Bible to which these books direct their readers I have read always, and consequently realize a strength of conviction totally independent of the man now in his grave by whom the conviction was generated in the first instance” (Thirteen Lectures on The Apocalypse, Robert Roberts, final paragraph, first lecture).
Theory versus practice
Most readers will no doubt give hearty assent to the foregoing. At least, we agree in theory but what of our practice?
Versions and condorances
Take our use of different versions of the Bible as an example. We know that no version of the English Bible is wholly accurate and reading from various versions often helps our understanding of a section of scripture. But what if we have a preconceived idea about a passage and keep looking until we find a version that supports our idea? By ignoring the insights supplied from various versions, we negate the value of a useful study aid and cease trying to get our own mind in tune with scripture.
The same can be said of concordances. These are invaluable to Bible study but we misuse them if we draw conclusions which depend solely on a “root” word or the two Greek words used to make up the word we have researched. Any ingenious ideas we get from concordance use should be tested by the context of the verse, the chapter, the book and the whole of the word of God. If they cannot stand such a test, they should be put aside.
Beware challenging the manuscripts
Ideas about corruption of the original text should also be handled with great care. We know we do not have the original documents and we know there are a few copying errors in the existing manuscripts. They are remarkably rare, however, and are almost always exposed by other ancient copies. In this regard, we have seen a very dangerous position proposed: a preconceived notion is refuted by existing manuscripts but the cherished idea is retained because one believes, without any support, that all extant manuscripts have been deliberately altered on the point in question. Think of where such a position would lead us. We would make up our own mind as to what the Bible should say; if it doesn’t say it, we would claim corruption of the text. With such an approach, we would have neutralized the power of the word and have replaced it with our own wisdom.
The great beauty of the Truth is that it is based wholly and solely on the Bible. Let us use the study aids we have to help us grow in understanding of the word of God, but let us never use them to superimpose upon scripture preconceived notions of our own invention. As a community, let us truly be “a people of the book.”
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One