Why is the bible "finished"?

[valdacious]

Hi friends:

Is there any particular reason to believe the "bible" is a finished book? Why should God stop speaking to us through the prophets and witnesses and not share it through the written word in the present age?

To be honest I feel like I have been naive to believe it all these years. Is it a form of idolatry to believe the bible as it is in its present form is "God's Word" as apposed to everything God actually says - written or otherwise?

 

[x141]

The word merely testifes of Him as does all creation but it is not Him.

If you do not eat of the tree, the river of life will flow freely.

 

[miamited]

hi valdacious,

The Scriptures are finished because their purpose is complete. The purpose of the Scriptures, which God began writing by His Spirit through the hands of men starting with Moses, were written for a specific part and purpose of God's plan.

So, what was God's plan, you might ask? The short version is that 6,000 years ago, give or take a couple of hundred, God created all of this realm of existence. That's right, from the furthest star that exists in our universe to the smallest atomic particle which makes up every piece of our universe. He created it all as a place for a special creature that He was going to make, to live. Flesh needs food and water and oxygen to live. So God created an entire realm to sustain the type of life that He was going to make.

He then created mankind through the joining and procreating of the first pair of creatures of flesh, Adam and Eve. However, as everyone who has ever heard the gospel or read the Scriptures should clearly understand, man sinned. Basically the creature rebelled against the Creator. But God had a purpose and the weak failings of the creatures He created in the flesh was not going to thwart God's purpose.

So, God began, through Abraham, to raise up a special group of these creatures that He would use specifically to tell the whole world about Him and His plan to restore any who would understand and desire to hold Him in the place of their life that they were created to, to the life they were created to have. These special people were the Jews. They were given special laws and separated from all the other nations of the world so that when the plan was completed we could all look back and when searching for the 'why should I believe this story', answers? We would be able to clearly see that this God who knows the past and future raised these special people up to deliver to us His truth.

Then, as the Scriptures clearly detail, as God worked in and through these special people that He raised up to deliver to us all that He wanted us to know, the Scriptures were written. They told us all about how God created everything. They told us all about how we were originally created to enjoy His blessings and provision for life eternally, but that rebellion against Him would not be tolerated if we were to have what He created us to have. They told us all about the power of His wrath and justice and mercy. They told us all about His raising up through Abraham a nation of people to serve Him. They told us all about how He worked through them to deliver to all of mankind the written declaration of who He is and His purpose in this realm of creation.

To 'prove' that all these writings that we call the 'Scriptures' were actually the truth from Him, He gave hundreds of prophecies that continued to be fulfilled just as He had foretold. He especially sprinkled liberally throughout these written Scriptures, prophecies of a Messiah. One who would come and set things right for those who would turn back to Him. Just as God continually pleaded with the Jews to turn back to Him when they rebelled, God has, through Jesus, made a call and a way for all mankind, who would so choose, to turn back to Him and receive the promised eternal life for which each of us was created to enjoy.

That, my friend is the purpose of the Scriptures. Now, that's all done. It's completed. It's finished! There is no more that God wants us to know. He did end the Scriptures with a full accounting of what will ultimately be the end of this realm of existence and how that's all going to come about. So, there is nothing more to add to the Scriptures. The story is complete.

Now, does God still speak to people? Maybe. And I know that many certainly think that He does and I'm surely not one to deny that He does, but it has no bearing on the Scriptures. The Scriptures and their purpose and their story is complete. They begin by telling us how and why we got here. Then explain how everything is going to ultimately work out. In between they tell us that God has made a way for all those who would...

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[lesliedellow]

Hi friends:

Is there any particular reason to believe the "bible" is a finished book? Why should God stop speaking to us through the prophets and witnesses and not share it through the written word in the present age?

To be honest I feel like I have been naive to believe it all these years. Is it a form of idolatry to believe the bible as it is in its present form is "God's Word" as apposed to everything God actually says - written or otherwise?

Because short of God crashing in on history with some new and major revelation, there is nothing new to be incorporated into scripture - no matter how many private revelations there may be.

 

[valdacious]

Thank you everyone. The bible then is a book of prophesy that explains the meaning of life and human history. The prophesy was fulfilled with the coming of Christ and the bible with the emergent church and the giving of the Holy Spirit.

 

[miamited]

hi valdacious,

That's about the sum total of it. The Scriptures which are contained within what we call today the 'bible', were given by God, through His Spirit to men to write down and they were given with a specific purpose. They were to tell us who we are, how we got here and where we're going. They also give us a fairly complete historical account of God's working through His people to bring about His salvation through His Son, Jesus. That's it! All that God has to reveal to us is now complete. There is nothing more to add to the Scriptures to support that purpose.

Sure, we can add all sorts of accounts of God speaking to other people or working miracles in the world today, but that doesn't conform to the purpose of the Scriptures. It doesn't change or affect, who we are, how we got here or where we're going. Nor does it change or affect God's great plan of redemption for mankind through the sacrifice of His Son. Therefore, anything we might add to the Scriptures would not be in keeping with the purpose for which God gave them to us through His Spirit.

I would add though, that there is more prophesy within the Scriptures than just that which relates to Jesus. One of God's commands to Israel, so that they might know who was the real God, was to test Him that everything He said would come to pass. That test still applies today.

We can look into all religions and they all have some great teachings about how men should live in peace with one another and where we're going and how we got here, but there is only one book of any religion that passes the test of prophecy. That is the Scriptures we now have gathered up and incorporated into the book that today we call the 'bible'. You can research buddhism, hinduism, islam, zorastrian and any other religion you feel led to compare and you will find none of them have any fulfilled prophecies, although some of these religions, such as islam do start with some of the same old covenant scriptures as we have in the bible and so there will be some of the same fulfilled prophecies that are in the bible, but only as far as they copy the prophecies of the bible.

Islam comes from the branch of faith handed down through Ishmael, the son of the bondwoman. So, it naturally follows that up until that point of separation which began with Isaac and Ishmael, that the two faiths are much alike. God also gave a few prophecies regarding Ishmael and his descendents. He promised Abraham that Ishmael would also have a multitude of descendents. He also told his mother, "He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers."

Behold, it is true. There is no other supposed 'brotherhood' of people that are more violent towards each other than those who practice the faith of islam. The hand of muslims is against everyone and everyone's hand against them. Friend, God knew before Ishmael was ever born that his descendents, though as numerous as the descendents of Isaac, that there would never be peace among the descendents of Ishmael. Never!

You can look at the various branches of Judaism and while they may surely disagree, they never raise their hands to kill one another. You may look at the various branches of christianity and again, while they may vociferously disagree with one another they never raise their hands to kill each other. But, look at the various branches of islam and they will fight each other to the death, bomb whole communities and families in their lust of blood and violence. God's prophecies are true and it's what sets those who follow the teachings of the bible apart from all other religious practices and traditions.

And keep in mind that this was the purpose for which the Scriptures were written!
They were written to you and to me and to everyone so that we might know, if we should ever decide to really seek to know the why's and wherefor's of our existence, the truth and God used prophecy to 'prove' that they are the real truth over and above all the other writings of men that are found along the way.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[drjean]

Might I add that just because the Scriptures themselves are "finished" or more accurately "complete" doesn't mean that what is given to us in them is all done.

The book of Revelation holds many more things for the future, and doesn't truly "finish" showing us until Christ sets up His Kingdom on earth, we reign a 1000 years and then retire to heaven for the rest of eternity.

Consider that when they were actually written the then future that is now past history had yet to unfold, 2000 year's worth of events. We have a unique perspective in that we are in the end times of the Word of God as it's written for our "enlightenment" so to speak. How kewl is that?

 

[hedrick]

This depends upon your idea of Scripture. Among Protestants there are two models. I'm not competent to either define or defend the conservative model, so I'm not going to try.

Liberal Protestants tend to see the basic inspiration as being not Scripture but God's work with Israel and Christ. Scripture is than from a practical point of view the only credible primary source information we have about God's acts of revelation.

This view could in principle allow for a revision of the canon, in either of two ways:

* We have additional primary source information about Israel or Christ's life. Suppose we found a fifth Gospel, and we had good reason to think it was historically as close to the original events as the existing 4 Gospels. There's no reason in principle why we couldn't add it. Similarly, if we came to believe that some books (e.g. 2 Peter) are actually forgeries, we might well stop using them.

* We decide that God has revealed himself through new events. In that case the primary source descriptions of those events could function the same as the current Scripture.

While I am open in principle to new revelatory events, I very much doubt it will happen. First, I wouldn't count the kinds of miracles you hear about. To merit consideration, something would need to be pretty major. The NT was, after all, the establishment of the new covenant predicted in the OT. It wasn't just a few miracle healings, but showed a major new phase in God's relationship with us.

The OT always pointed to something like that happening. But I don't think there are further pointers, except to the second coming. And since that will bring us into Christ's presence directly, I don't think we'll need a written Scripture.

But God could certainly do something that we don't expect. One interesting possibility would be that we discover another intelligent species with whom God has been working much as he worked with humanity. I could conceive of a situation where Christians might accept accounts of those events as part of God's revelation. That's the only situation I can think of, but God could have things in store that I can't think of.

Changing the canon is really problematical, because it would be nearly impossible to get agreement. But if there came to be widespread belief among a segment of the Church that some books were essentially as useful in understand God's revelation as the Bible, those books could well be used in the same way as the 66 books, and from a practical point of view function as an extension of the canon for that segment of the Church.

In the ET scenario, we probably wouldn't modify our canon, but might treat their equivalent of the canon as inspired Scripture alongside ours.

 

[Seeking His Face]

Hi friends:

Is there any particular reason to believe the "bible" is a finished book? Why should God stop speaking to us through the prophets and witnesses and not share it through the written word in the present age?

To be honest I feel like I have been naive to believe it all these years. Is it a form of idolatry to believe the bible as it is in its present form is "God's Word" as apposed to everything God actually says - written or otherwise?

Not that I would condone anything Jim Jones ever did or said, but he used to refer to the Bible as a "paper idol".

It seems like many Christians, especially those who claim that one version is the only true Word of God to the exclusion of all others, are treading on dangerous ground by making an idol out of the letter of the Bible. There is a name for this: bibliolatry.

And, actually the Word of God is not the Bible specifically, which is only paper and ink, but the divine wisdom and truth (Logos) that is expressed on its pages. The "Word" in John 1:1 is translated from the Greek word Logos. The Logos is the Divine Wisdom and Truth, which was incarnated in the person of Jesus Christ.

"And the Word [logos] was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." John 1:14

Try telling that to the next person who says the Bible is literally the Word of God, and watch him start foaming at the mouth.

P.S. Jesus is the Word of God, but does that mean Jesus is the Bible in the flesh? Think about how silly that sounds.

 

[Fireinfolding]

John 15:7 If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.

Its twofold though, He is the Word in whom we are to abide but the Word instructs us to abide in his words likewise

2John 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

He that loveth Him will keep his sayings, which are his words, so the Word and his words (which is His doctrine) shows its twofold.

 

[Unix]

2 Peter is not a forgery. The way it attributes to Peter was an acceptable method back in those times, of establishing a document as creedal - together with careful analysis by the apostles (including Paul), (and today), of the letters theology, motif, parallels, and that it is written by an apostle of Jesus, concluded that it should it was to be in the canon (and stay there). It wasn't given canonic authority or accepted as canonical late, the council merely came to the same conclusion as the apostles had. (The apostles had been competing in a healthy way, and that's why there was competition.)
The Oriental Orthodox Churches was the only place where 2 Peter was not widely circulated, read and preached back in (apostolic ... (I don't know were they founded by an apostle or during that time, I haven't read all of the Bible carefully You see and I don't trust the epistle to Gal, 2 Thess, the Pastorals, 2-3 Jn, Revelation) ... or) patristic times. However, the Oriental Orthodox Churches recognize Paul as, or give him the title of, the editor of the NT. Source 1 Source 2 So Paul was definately with the apostles of Jesus deciding the validity of the books of the NT. No I'm not saying they made up the canon in apostolic times allready, I said validity, all I'm saying is that the apostles testified to 2 Peter. Jude wanted to make sure it gets read and attributed it to Peter, which was, like said, an acceptable method.
2 Peter was written by a different author, and that would be Jude. Here's a link with discussion on 1-2 Peter, the OP gives an argument that in 2 Peter 1:16 Peter sayed "we told you" and that that would mean Peter founded all the Churches in the cities of the recepients of 1 Peter. Since it's not so we don't know did he found those four plus Rome, or just wrote to them all. So he founded Rome and therefore that's still the bishop of Rome has more authority than the other bishops:
Peter founded more than 1 church...so why Rome? - Catholic Answers Forums

if we came to believe that some books (e.g. 2 Peter) are actually forgeries, we might well stop using them.

Previously edited by Unix; 5th January 2012 at 08:47 PM local time. Reason: add 1st paragraph
Previously edited by Unix; 5th January 2012 at 08:58 PM local time. Reason: add 2nd paragraph

 

[Unix]

We have historical record that ANY other writings than those of Paul, had to be written by an apostle of the Messiah (i.e. those which are recorded in the Gospels to have believed in Jesus) , it's this:
"Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:18)." Source
Gal 1:18-19 (1970 NEB second edition) Three years later I did go upp to Jerusalem to get to know Cephas. I stayed with him for a forthnight, without seeing any other of the apostles, except* James the Lord's brother.
Gal 1:20 (combined from JB (just, literal truth) and 1971 GNB 3rd edition): What I just wrote is the literal truth. I am not lying, so help me God!

* Or but only

Since we have been able to later on proove that some books in the Pauline corpus were not written by Paul, eg. the Pastorals and 2 Thess, those are ruled out from the Canon. The same principle rules out 2-3 Jn and Revelation.

Galatians was written in a haste, and is therefore not to be used theologically other than for the historical record of establishment of the Canon of Scripture. This I have taken in account in my post: http://www.christianforums.com/t7510849-post58365543/

 

[x141]

The doctrine of, or the obedience of, Christ, is I am. Past knowledge, past finding out. Knowledge is unto death and can not concieve Life and neither can it know Him. Knowledge builds a city but this city is not the city of God.

That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us ... I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one;

He is the Life that is hid in this field. This, Abide, this voice that is One, that crys in the wilderness, being prepared until the Day of His showing. He is prepared as the morning, the Morning Is and we turn to meet Him.

Whether the Bible, the world or us, He is the life that is hid in the field and you must sell all your goods, all your merchandise, loose your soul to buy it.

 

[hedrick]

2 Peter is not a forgery. The way it attributes to Peter was an acceptable method back in those times,

This claim is commonly made, but I don't think there's much evidence for it. See e.g. PSEUDONYMITY and Pseudonymity

Indeed your own argument is against it. You think someone used 2 Peter in order to get people to read it. But that only works if people are deceived about the authorship. If deception was not intended, someone could claim to be "xxx, disciple of Peter" or something like that.

 

[Unix]

Yes I have read the definitions earlier on a few times. But I can easily defend the argument. As I'm sure most know, the date of the epistle is estimated somewhat late so Jude must have lived longer than Peter, so most, perhaps all eye-witnesses to the supposed origin, were allready dead since some years, so therefore it was not that difficult to purpot the deception.

This claim is commonly made, but I don't think there's much evidence for it. See e.g. PSEUDONYMITY and Pseudonymity

Indeed your own argument is against it. You think someone used 2 Peter in order to get people to read it. But that only works if people are deceived about the authorship.

That is a little bit more unlikely. The epistle doesn't resemble 1 Peter. It resembles the epistle of Jude. The author would have made a bit more of an effort. Compare to the pastorals or 2 Thess (I haven't read them the last 10-20 years, so I can't say anything sure about how much they resemble the authentic Pauline epistles other than that I've paid attention to some differences/problems.)

If deception was not intended, someone could claim to be "xxx, disciple of Peter" or something like that.

 

[EricGray]

Although I am intrigued by the prospect of an algorithm to parse authorship in the New Testament (as it is being done for the Old), we have to remember that some of Paul's letters were explicitly written by a secretary. There is no way to separate the specific wording of the secretary from the foundational thoughts of Paul. The same could be said for 2 Peter. Regardless of whether 2 Peter or Jude came first, or whether both were derived from a third source, the authority on each is the same: they were written by their respective writers.

Read that again.

The ONLY THING WE REALLY KNOW of "Jude's" writing is this letter. One of the few things we know of "Peter" is 2 Peter.

I find it highly meaningless to argue that 2 Peter wasn't written by Peter because today we don't value 2 Peter because we know Peter, but rather we know "Peter" because we value 2 Peter.

I know that Bart Ehrman argues that pseudepigraphical products are "forgeries", but that's only meaningful if you have any other reason to value the original "source." In this case, we don't. We love Paul and Peter BECAUSE of the letters, not the other way around. Disproving specific authorship wouldn't affect the respect we give to the letters, but instead merely raise a curiosity of how the letter was formed -- something we'll never be able to satisfactorily answer.

Having read Qumran literature, Pseudepigrapha, and New and Old Testament Apocrypha, the respective canons were chosen for their consistency of ideas more than for purported "authorship." We don't even have a name for the author of Hebrews, for instance, but we love it anyway.

Erhman's position is a red herring.

 

[Unix]

2003 Encyclopaedia Britannica says that the author of Ep was possibly Onesimus, a disciple of Paul, after Paul had died, as a covering letter for the Pauline corpus (for the genuine ones, Onesimus would have recognized 2 Thess and the pastorals as forgeries). But I haven't heard/seen many say that Ep shouldn't be in the canon.

we have to remember that some of Paul's letters were explicitly written by a secretary.

The false association is acceptable. If 2 Peter WOULD bear Judes name in it, we would probably value the epistle of Jude LESS than we do.
So God has designed a reason for the association! The process how the Bible came to be, is divine, and clearly referenced: we can see in the Gospels what Jesus said about the competition between the apostles, it was healthy competition because the motifs of all the apostles developed into what was pleasing to the Father, while they followed Jesus's walk on earth.

but rather we know "Peter" because we value 2 Peter.

 

[BackwardsJustice]

Hi friends:

Is there any particular reason to believe the "bible" is a finished book? Why should God stop speaking to us through the prophets and witnesses and not share it through the written word in the present age?

To be honest I feel like I have been naive to believe it all these years. Is it a form of idolatry to believe the bible as it is in its present form is "God's Word" as apposed to everything God actually says - written or otherwise?

Great question, and we should all question it.

The book is not finished for one. Actually, when the Counsel of Nicea put the bible together they left out a few gospels...Mary, Phillip...etc. That was man's doing.

I also do not believe God went "through" man so to say to write the word. I believe man wrote it as he perceived it. Doesn't mean the bible is worthless it just means we need to take those historical facts into consideration when we read the bible.

For example, if God divinely intervened during the writing of the Gospels, why is the contradictions? Why are there different accounts of Jesus's life? Again it doesn't mean we should read or refer to the bible, but remember man is man. God is in our hearts if you let him.

 

[lesliedellow]

Great question, and we should all question it.

The book is not finished for one. Actually, when the Counsel of Nicea put the bible together they left out a few gospels...Mary, Phillip...etc. That was man's doing.

The Bible was not "put together" at Council of Nicea, which did not even touch upon the canon of scripture. Also, you do not have to read many of the "gospels" written in the second century to know that they are pretty worthless.

 

[BrotherLuke]

Hi friends:

Is there any particular reason to believe the "bible" is a finished book? Why should God stop speaking to us through the prophets and witnesses and not share it through the written word in the present age?

To be honest I feel like I have been naive to believe it all these years. Is it a form of idolatry to believe the bible as it is in its present form is "God's Word" as apposed to everything God actually says - written or otherwise?

The entire Bible clearly runs a full circle. The Creation beginning in Genesis to the Destruction and New Creation in Revelation. The fall of Man into sin by Adam and the payment for the wages of this sin (death) in Christ. Etc. Etc. See how everything left hanging was completed?

In Christ's own words .... "It is done".

Your Brother in Christ,

Luke