The Revealed Religion

It appears that we have a completely-novel trend at Debunking Christianity. The team has, for the moment, abandoned their memoirs in order to pursue the critiquing of the claims of Christianity. Aaron M. Rossetti initiates this new practice by rightly choosing to examine the ultimate authority of the Christian worldview: the Holy Scriptures.

By way of comment (for space, I won’t include the paragraph-by-paragraph citation of Aaron’s post like I normally would, but I will number this in the order that his arguments are presented and suggest that you refer to his post for the context):

1. The Christian doctrine in question concerning the Scriptures (Sola Scripture), contrary to Aaron’s assertion, does not affirm that Scripture is the only “authority” or the only thing that contains “truth.” Rather, Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith for the believer. Scripture is the only ultimate and infallible authority. Other authorities exist but are subject to fallibility. Other truths exists, but nothing which contradicts Scripture is true, for Scripture is the ultimate standard.

2. The Bible has a focus: it tells the story of God’s history of redeeming his people and causing them to proclaim his excellencies (1 Peter 2:9). The Bible, therefore, gives us information which is relevant to that focus.

3. Aaron makes some common Romanistic assumptions in his posts. He critiques what is, in theological terms, Sola Scriptura, but he assumes the principles of Romanists, adopting a position which, actually, opposes the doctrine at hand. In other words, he builds up his own strawmen to knock down.

For instance, the canon was not closed in the 4th century. The canon was closed when John put his pen down. Furthermore, man does not determine the canon. God determines the canon, and man recognizes what God has determined. His assertion that Christians claim that “those making the decisions” concerning the canon (as if anyone one group made the “decision”) were “infallible” is purely Romanistic. In critiquing the doctrine that the Scriptures are to be the sole infallible rule of faith for believers, Aaron is critiquing Sola Scriptura. Yet in critiquing Sola Scriptura he utilizes Romanistic assumptions! Does Aaron not know that Roman Catholics deny this doctrine?

4. Aaron incorrectly uses the term “faith.”

5. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura concerns the time after the Scriptures have been given and therefore does not concern the time when the Apostles were alive presenting the gospel both by letter and by word. This does not mean that Biblical infallibility was not a “chief cornerstone” during this time, as Aaron states. Surely the infallibility of the Old Testament was important to early Christians!

6. The statement, “Christians, as divided in doctrinal stances as they appear to be, would barely have a shred of commonality apart from the bible” is altogether false. If he means that, apart from the Bible, there would be no Christianity; well, he would be right, in that Christianity is a revealed religion. But if he is asserting that the only commonality between Christians is the Bible then such an assertion is terribly ignorant. Is the deity of Christ no place of commonality? Is the centrality of the cross no place of commonality? Is the bodily resurrection of Christ no place of commonality? Is the gospel of Christ no place of commonality? Is the doctrine of the Trinity no place of commonality? Or, does Aaron honestly think that one can deny any of these and be reasonably considered a “Christian”?

7. Again, the claim is not that “There is no authority for truth outside of the Bible.” Rather, the claim is that there is no ultimate or infallible authority outside of the Bible.

8. Aaron’s interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16 is terribly lacking. Again, he argues like a Romanist. Paul’s argument is not “The canon of Scripture that you hold today is sufficient.” Rather, his argument is that if it is Scripture, then it is theopneustos (”God-breathed”); and if it is theopneustos then it is profitable to equip. So Aaron’s claim that “this verse does not state that the New Testament we hold today is the inerrant or inspired word of God” is in error. The New Testament meets the standards of being Scripture, and is therefore, theopneustos, and, by consequence, infallible.

9. Aaron’s handling on the definition of theopneustos is, like everything else, terribly lacking. The usage is not comparable to his illustration that “An author named Tom is inspired by another author named Jim.” God did not breath into something already existent. Rather he breathed out the very object. God is wholly and completely the source, initiation, and author of Scripture; and Scripture, therefore, coming from God, is without error. Furthermore, the text at hand (2 Tim 3:16-17) states that Scripture is sufficient to equip the man of God for “every good work.” Can an error-filled document do this?

10. In all of Aaron’s Scripture citations, he never once cites 2 Peter 3:16, where Paul unequivocally recognizes the writings of Paul to be Scripture. He also ignores those citations, such as Acts 17:11 and 2 Peter 1, where we see the Scriptures receiving their proper usage.

11. His post concludes that the New Testament no where connects Scripture with “the Word of God.” This is based on, no doubt, a quick concordance search and the notion that a connection is made only if a verse states explicitly, “The terms ‘word of God’ and ‘Scripture’ are used interchangeably.” But in the contexts of all of these passages, the Word was received, it was spoken, and it was written down. Furthermore, Aaron chooses to ignore the Old Testament usage. Surely the New Testament is referring to the same thing as the Old when it uses the phrase “Word of God.” And what was the Word of God to Old Testament Israel? It was his spoken truth that was communicated through the prophets and later written down by the authors of Scripture.

Yet, let’s say that Scripture never makes such a connection. Or, let’s say that Scripture never declares its own infallibility. So what? As long as Scripture does not deny that it is infallible, is there a problem? Aaron’s discussion assumes the Scriptures to be of divine origin, and he searches to see if the Scriptures are consistent with such a notion. And, as long as they do not deny or contradict such a presupposition, I do not see it to be a problem that they would not declare their own sufficiency (though, in fact, they do). The presupposition is, after all, a presupposition. The Christian worldview relies on divine revelation, and in assuming diving revelation it consequently assumes infallibility and inerrancy. So, the presupposition that the Scriptures are divinely given is the same presupposition that they are infallible. To presuppose the one is to presuppose the other.

12. Aaron’s ripping 1 Corinthians 4:20 out of its context in order to support his agenda is absolutely nauseating. I’ll let the reader determine if there is warrant to his usage of it.

13. Aaron concludes his post, once again, with an incorrect definition of faith. I suppose that this oft-repeated error of his is a good closing demonstration of the post that precedes it. It is the cherry-error on top of a monstrous banana-split arrangement of deficiencies.

Evan May.