Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible

by R. Laird Harris

Sometime or the other, practically everyone of us has been faced with the question of how does one determine which books should be considered sacred writings and which should not. The question is not a simple one to answer, but this 316-page book by R. Laird Harris will be helpful to you in determining the answer to that question. He deals with the doctrines of the inspiration and canonicity of the Bible.

In his discussion of the inspiration of the scriptures, Harris spends some time dealing with the spread of modernism, the rise of higher criticism, science and the Bible, evidence of passages which make the claim to be authoritative because they came from God (to demonstrate that to claim that the Bible is inspired is to make only the claim that it makes for itself), a historical review which demonstrates that men throughout the years have believed in the verbal inspiration of the scriptures (it is nova new doctrine), and a survey of how textual criticism relates to the doctrine of verbal inspiration. In addition to this, Harris fields some of the objections raised against the doctrine of verbal inspiration.

Of the books which deal with the problem of the canonicity of the books of the Bible, Harris’ book is the best which I have read. Over two-thirds of the book deal with the subject of the canonicity of the scriptures. After the author explained the presently accepted theory among liberals that the canon of the Old Testament was fixed at the Council of Jamnia in 90 A.D., he cited sufficient evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls to show that the community at Qumran accepted the Old Testament books as authoritative prior to the Council at Jamnia (this disproved the liberal position) in addition to this, the citation from Josephus regarding the accepted inspired literature of his day was shown ,to confirm the position that the Jews had already begun to accept the books of the Old Testament as authoritative prior to the Council of Jamnia. Positively, Harris asserted that the books were accepted as authoritative because they came from God. (Harris is not afraid to grapple with such touchy problems as the record of Moses’ death in books of which he is the author.) Jesus’ position with reference to the Old Testament was well summarized by Harris as follows:

“The Lord Jesus Christ’s seal of approval upon this literature, in the form which it then and now has, is guarantee enough of its canonicity and truth for those who find in Him the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Put when Christ approved of the Old Testament books, He was not promulgating new doctrine” (p. 179).

In his discussion of the Old Testament, Harris even discussed the problems of the apocrypha, discussing the Alexandrian canon of the LXX, the Council of Trent’s decree in 1522, and the position of Jerome with reference to these books.

With reference to the New Testament canon, the Dean of the Faculty at Covenant College and Theological Seminary (St. Louis)` cited internal evidences from the New Testament which confirmed that the authors of the various books expected their writings to be accepted on the same basis as those of the Old Testament. Then, he dealt with the, patristic test of canonicity (“Is the writing from the apostles?”) and showed that the books which were seriously questioned were those whose authorship was dubious. Harris’ conclusion was:

“The books did not become authoritative by Church decision or as a result of the veneration attaching to things of antiquity. They were authoritative when written because given by inspiration of God. They were recognized as authoritative, inspired, and canonical by the generations to which they were addressed because of the position of the authors as acknowledged spokesmen of God” (p. 294).

I heartily recommend this book to you as a scholarly work on the subject of the canonicity of the scriptures. Although other books do a better job in dealing with the doctrine of the inspiration of the scriptures and this book has some Calvinism in it, I know of no better book to recommend with reference to the canonicity of the scriptures.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:43, p. 2
September 5, 1974

By Bruce Edwards, Jr.

Most Christians seem to be quite talented in observing the faults of others, knowing exactly what “should have been done” in this or that case and also exactly how something “should have been said.” The problem, it would seem then, is to find an adequate outlet for these enormous talents. Most of us have definite and strict opinions on nearly everything (including whether we ought to have “definite and strict opinions”): And most of the time we wait until things are “done wrong” (at least in our eyes) before we say anything about it. Excuses exist aplenty! “It really was none of my business” (of course now that “it” has happened it is!); “Well; brother so-and-so is supposed to be the expert on those things” (but now we are!); AIf I had been leading it, this would have never happened” (ironic, is it not, that the ones that react the strongest after something is done are always the last ones to volunteer for anything in the first place!).

What we all need to do is, “put our faith where our mouths are!” All of us are well endowed with the power of speech; we talk, talk, talk … the problem is that we never get anything done! We are satisfied with living in a theoretical world-because on that plane anyone can have “all the answers.” We must realize though that life is lived in real, down-to-earth, day-to-day practical circumstances!, We can all “take care of” that hypothetical Baptist or Methodist we meet in the classroom, but how about the one that lives next door? It is easy to amen a prayer asking for “reapers to be sent” but how about getting out our own sickles? We all need to reread what James told us 1900 years ago: _-`-`But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves…. But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed” (Jas. 1:23, 25).

Truth Magazine, XVIII:42, p. 14
August 29, 1974

By Ralph Edmunson

We are called “antis”; not by ourselves, but by those who are in opposition to us and can not find any Bible principle to uphold them in their digression from the scriptures.

Because we oppose any and all innovations to the Lord’s spiritually revealed plans; and because we oppose all departures from that plan, the devil’s disciples refer to us as “the againsters,”–“antis.”

Is it a crime to be “against” things that are wrong? Is it a sin to be “anti” evil? Surely those who shout “anti” the loudest are “anti” some things.

Those people and those churches today who are supporting the “Herald of Truth,” church supported “orphan homes,” and other centralized combines among the churches of Christ can be placed in one of two categories: either they do not know what is going on; or, knowing, they are the devil’s representatives attempting to draw away disciples after them in the fashion of Paul’s prediction in Acts 20:28.

The introduction of the Missionary Society in 1849 divided the churches of Christ and resulted in two groups-the so called “Christian Church” and churches of Christ. These churches of Christ were following the Bible before and after the division. They did not change. The churches of Christ that are opposing the “Herald of Truth” today are teaching the same that churches of Christ were teaching when they opposed the Missionary Society.

We still ask: Where is the Bible authority for centralization and church support of human organizations? The issues are the same whether the specific- digression is the Missionary Society or the “Herald of Truth.”

After this third (current) division has finally been forced on the churches by scheming brethren who are insistent on broadening the organization of the church, there will still be a host of faithful brethren who strive to speak where the Bible speaks and who try to remain silent where the Bible is silent–thus obeying 1 Pet. 4:11: “If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God.

After the uproar caused by calling us “non-progressives,” “againsters,” “antis,” and many other uncomplimentary epithets has subsided to some extent, we will still be churches of Christ, concerned with following the simplicity of the Lord’s plan. We will still be calling for Bible authority for centralizing the resources of many congregations in the hands of one group of men, whether they be the elders of one church or the directors of some human organization. We will continue to ask for Bible authority for supporting human organizations, however worthy, out of the church treasury.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:42, p. 13
August 29, 1974

By Ron Halbrook

(Editor’s Note: No little has been heard lately about the value of lessons taught by satire. Following is an article in satirical form written in response to Edward Fudge’s widely circulated booklet and article, AAnswers to Questions@).

Brethren, it is actually reported that some among you say sin consigns one to hell, and I partly believe it. Some have become so unyielding that once they acknowledge a thing is “sinful”-in the biblical meaning of the term-they are single minded in preaching that said action will cause one to be lost. They will turn neither to the right hand nor to the left in this declaration. Brother “Walk The Tightrope” has brought this appalling news to our attention and we are greatly indebted to him for warning against such fanatical hewing to the line. In preaching on sin, we need to leave room for “yea, yea” and “nay, nay” lest we make it appear God’s Word consigns to hell without further ado all who continue in sinful activity.

Here is the report as it came from the press recently:

I believe that it (instrumental music) is (sin), in the accepted definition of “sin” as “missing the mark.” My previous answer clearly shows that. Some, however, have apparently wanted to play judge and jury, and assign to hell without further ado all who use instrumental music in worship. This I have refused to do, and, when it has been clear that this was the meaning being given to “sin” I have refused to use that word. I have always believed, however, that instrumental music “misses the mark” of God’s will, and that-in that biblical meaning of the term-it is sinful. (Edward Fudge, “Answers to Questions,” Gospel Guardian May 16, 1974, p. 8)

Judging from this report, it appears some brethren have lost that all-important distinction clearly made in (?) (Book), (?) (Chapter), (?) (Verse) (the exact reference slips my mind at the moment) between continued sin which consigns to hell without further ado and continued sin which does not so condemn. Likely brethren have overlooked the distinction because they reason as follows:

1. Major Premise: “The wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23).

2. Minor Premise: Instrumental music in worship is sinful (in the “biblical meaning of the term”).

3. Conclusion: The wages of worshipping with instrumental music is death. Brother W. T. Tightrope has called us back to that scriptural proclamation of the gospel which affirms the major and minor premises but denies the conclusion. In some cases, of course it is “yea, yea;” but in some cases there is “further ado” resulting in “nay, nay.” In other words, to state it simply, the conclusion is yea and nay, yes and no! But, as reported, weaker logicians persist in thinking it must be “yea, yea” or “nay, nay” and that each answer excludes the other.

Now that this startling report has been brought right out into the open, the light that once escaped us is now dawning in our heart. (1) There really are some brotherhood watchdogs and regulators troubling Israel; look what a cry is raised just because some teach the principle of the old Jerusalem gospel which distinguishes between sins which condemn and sins which do not. (2) Those who accept the above stated conclusion without further ado are playing “judge and jury”-they must think they are God. These single-eyed, simple-minded brethren do not yet have the humility to admit that the major and minor premises can be “yea, yea” but the conclusion still be yea and nay. (3) When the conclusion is “yea, yea” or nay, nay” exclusively, opposing groups develop; the circle of fellowship can be enlarged if those who insist on “yea” wil permit “nay” (in some cases) and if those who insist on “nay” will permit “yea” (in some cases)-i.e., let both groups unite under this conclusion: “yea and “nay”.

(4) Love demands the conclusion “yea” and “nay;” therefore, those who resist that conclusion are almost surely motivated by bad motives such as prejudice, financial gain, increased paper circulation, ambition for. Power, (5) Those who resist the obvious “yea-and-nay conclusion cannot prove the certainty of their invariable “yea-yea” conclusion (never mind that the premises are admitted). Therefore, it seems certain that their continued outcry is abusive, political, dealing in mere personalities, bestial, and cannibalistic. That is the most charitable thing that could be said about it.

Brethren, if the full impact of Brother W.T. Tightrope’s report has not hit you yet, consider this. That one should turn neither to the right nor the left in declaring that sin consigns one to hell is a fault “not so much as named among the Gentiles.” Neither Catholics nor Protestants are guilty of such; is it fitting that the people of God alone should be guilty of such deeds?

Truth Magazine, XVIII:42, p. 12-13
August 29, 1974