So Lynette mentioned to me this evening that I should really update this blog more often. I agree. That is why you are reading this.
So not too much is new with life, well maybe that's not all true. Sure I've been keeping busy with the same old school work and dorm life, but things have changed a bit around here too.
One thing that has changed in the past week is my roommate! Kristen and I now share a room and we're having a lot of fun times (like the three hours of Private Practice on Thursday night). I do however, miss Lynette, my former roommate. That is why I am updating my blog...so she knows what is going on in my life. Just kidding ;).
I've also been thinking a lot lately, some things in particular and others not so much. Sometimes homework readings trigger it and other times, it's just life. For example, the other night I had a terrible dream about Greg, Mel and their wedding. Nothing was planned and everything went terribly, and I was the only one who realized it! I remember thinking that this had to be a dream, but that was impossible because it seemed too realistic. Then I woke up. That's the last time I watch Mamma Mia the same day I think about their wedding plans!
I've also been thinking a lot about life. A few weeks ago, I read on my cousin's blog about living your own life to the fullest and not wasting time focusing on others lives, whether that be on TV or in reality. I'm working on that. Sometimes it gets a bit difficult with school and other times, I just don't feel like I'm in the mood to socialize, like right now. I suppose it comes with the territory of being an introvert, but sometimes, I kind of wish that I was not so introverted and that I enjoyed getting out more. Sometimes I enjoy it, but other times I withdraw. I don't know why I do it, and I don't like it. I am getting better though, and I am getting out more...I suppose you could say that I'm working on it.
I realized something else today when talking with Cassie. Well no, that's not quite right, I suppose I've realized it before then, but never really addressed it. I feel like I'm two different people, one here at the dorm and one at home. I feel as if I am more crazy and more myself at home and again, I'm not quite sure why. I'm perfectly comfortable with the girls at the dorm and I love being around them but for some reason, I withdraw sometimes, normally when everyone is acting crazy. At home, I have no problem just letting loose and having fun, but I am never really in the mood to do that here. Maybe it is because Mom and I have a lot in common in that department and she can draw me out of my bubble. I'm happy with who I am as a person, but sometimes I wish that I could let loose just a bit easier and not make things seem so awkward. Maybe I'm still trying to find out who I am (great, and I thought I was passed that stage in my life).
My religion and church history classes are also making me think a lot. Not so much about faith, but all of the technical theology that comes with it. We've been discussing infallibility vs. inerrency (the Bible being free of error entirely, which is impossible because it was written by humans). With all of this comes the question of how the Bible was actually put together. We've discussed this in class quite a bit and how everything was inspired by God, but it still makes me think. Why did people stop writing the Bible? Why are sermons today not published in a "Bible" and called infallible, after all, are pastors not called by God as Paul and the apostles were? Why did the early church fathers choose to disregard some books and add others that were vital? I have faith that God willed the Bible (as we know it) to be as it is today, but I just find it strange how we can base our entire belief system on a Bible where some books could have been added and some could have been taken away. It's all a matter of faith and God and his message, written in a form that we humans can understand, but it still makes me wonder sometimes. Maybe over the summer (when I have time) I'll read the Apocrypha.
I've also been thinking a lot about the future. This week I was offered an interview for the Education Program here at Redeemer, so I'm pretty excited for that. Sometimes I worry about the job prospects and how it can be difficult to find a good teaching job after school. Then I remember that I've made it this far, with only a few bumps in the road. God wants me here and I know that and I'm comforted in that.
So that is my life right now and a few thoughts that fill my mind, making it difficult to concentrate on tasks at hand. I just need to remember to take one thing at a time and somehow, everything all works out.
3 comments:
Thanks for the update!
Hey Lydia,
So I happened to come upon the link to your blog on facebook, and hoped maybe I could help you with some input on the inerrancy vs. infallibility thing (Also i'm curious, who is teaching that class?).
Let me just briefly and initially say that someone who tells you the Bible cannot be 100% inerrant because it was written by human hands has not thought through the problem properly. If, after all, anything that proceeds out of the modes of human communication is mired by sinfulness, then what the Prophets say in the old testament could as well have been false, because they were saying what God had told them. It therefore follows that if God were to purpose to give a whole and complete Scripture to His peoples by using human hands, it could definitely be written without error. This is, of course, not to say that all that Moses, Joshua, Paul, and all the others said and wrote was inerrant, but rather that when God led them to pen that which was put into the Scriptures, it would necessarily be written perfectly.
This fact is also upheld by God's love for His chosen people- whenever God leads His people He leads them with truth, and so He would not in His love allow them to be led by anything less than true preaching.
Also, the reverence with which the apostles and Jesus upheld the Old Testament indicates it's irrefutable nature- every time they call upon a verse in the Old Testament they are implying that the things happening at their time are validated by the True Word of God. If they were drawing upon possibly mistaken writings, the grounds for the proof of Jesus being the Son of God, and for the doctrine of salvation by faith, for instance, would lose their support.
Finally, the Scriptures are often pointed to in the New Testament as the standard of truth against which all teachings are to be weighed, such as in Acts 18:28, 2 Tim. 3:12-17, and 2 Peter 1: 12-21, especially vss. 20 and 21 which say: "20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."
We can see clearly from such verses that prophecy and the Word of God is irrefutably from God and therefore must be truth because God is truth.
Now, as to the fact that transferring from one manuscript to the next over the centuries might often have been much like playing the rumor game with friends, we cannot for obvious reasons deny that humans throughout the centuries make mistakes. It is also made quite clear through the attempts of the proponents of the Gnostic Gospels and the Apocrypha that there are those who wish to cast falsehood into the midst of the Word of God. The fallen nature of the monks and scribes throughout the centuries may- rather, must- be placed in the context of that same loving nature of God who would not allow the first writers of His Word to write falsely. If God could transmit the message once, He can certainly keep it in good form through the centuries. What happens within the English language as 100 different translations for every culture and IQ level are created is an effort of man, and while God will certainly work through the Holy Spirit to make sure the most mangled translation of the Bible does not mislead His chosen people, those particular translations carry very little merit of their own.
Continuing then to the issue with the Gnostic Gospels and the Apocrypha, you will find in the Belgic Confession a basic explanation for why the 66 books of Scripture are accepted and the pretending books are not. Basically it comes down to a prayerful decision among the churches in the very early time of the Church to reject the books of the Apocrypha and the Gnostic gospels (which they keep finding somehow all over the world...the book of Judas, for instance). Not only do we therefore hold faith that the early men of the church were led by the Spirit in discerning true books of the Bible from attempts by reasoning mankind, but there are as well contradictions between said books (we'll call them outcast books for convenience) and the 66 books of the Bible. While the Belgic Confession accepts that the apocryphal books may be OK for study, they are not seen as being inspired as the evidence of any error or contradiction of the accepted books of the Bible necessarily invalidates them.
It is therefore not a matter of "By what authority did early church fathers, wonderful men though they undoubtedly were, yet sinful, determine to declare some books good and others bad?" but rather we believe in faith that, just as the Holy Spirit testifies in our own hearts as to what is good and true, so also in their hearts the same would have happened. Again, this is all in the nature of God guiding His people and not allowing them to be led astray.
As to why the Bible stopped being written, I think it's largely because Revelation was written as the end of the Word of God. The Bible as it is in its 66 books is declared the full and complete Word, and is considered to be all that is necessary for Scripture (again, look at 2 Tim. 3:15). While the true preaching of the Word is still practiced by pastors in church's, and while true discernment is still exercised- both within the capacity of the Holy Spirit's work within our hearts to recognize truth and discern good from bad, and using the infallible Word of God as a basis against which to judge teachings- it is not, perhaps this is a valid way to put it, necessary, to add to the Scriptures. God has given us the sufficient message for salvation in the fallen world, and what pastors preach is expounding and convicting and encouraging, but it is not new revelation in the sense that the whole Bible is new revelation. We certainly do accept, with discernment, the writings of the church fathers, reformers, and our own ministers as well as the confessions, catechisms, and creeds written over the past 2 millennium, as being true so long as they agree with the Bible. But they aren't part OF the Bible.
Hopefully this all helps somehow. It's not a topic I've done extensive study on but nevertheless it's certainly one I'm deeply convicted about. When it comes down to it, with or without proof if the Bible in its 66 book format is not inerrant then it is possible that there could be falsehoods in the teachings of the Bible, and that would challenge our whole faith in the end.
Anyway, I'm glad to hear someone thinking about and challenging these ideas, although I'd like to find out just what they're teaching these days around Redeemer :P May God continue to bless you with a maturing Christian faith and wisdom to learn more about Him and His Creation. :)
Keep asking those hard questions Lydia. That's where spiritual transformation and growth occurs.
Post a Comment