Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: tytso@athena.mit.edu (Theodore Ts'o) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Scripture ends? Message-ID: Date: 5 Jul 89 05:44:27 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Lines: 127 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) writes: >The Bible does, in fact, contain a very ominous statement that we are >never to rely on any words other than those which have been already >written in it. Revelation 22:18 tells us ..... >There are many people who try to avoid the realization that >the Bible as is is the one and only source of divine truth by arguing >that these verses are simply some sort of copyright notification >specifically regarding the book of Revelation itself. First of all, I hope I don't need to point out the obvious boot-strapping problem in using a Biblical verse to "prove" that the Bible is inerrant. Secondly as Darren has pointed out, the Bible as a canon didn't exist yet. Very often "Bible-believing Christians" like to critize and judge and damn the "main-line Protestant Churches" (their term) for following practices which may not be mentioned in the Bible, such as infant baptism. But what they forget is that many of these traditional "non-biblical" practices were created by the same church (at approximately the same time) which determined (at one of the early councils) what exactly constituted the Bible! I've included here to close out this article a fairly long quotation written by Huston Smith, from the book THE RELIGIONS OF MAN. It's a very interesting book, as it describes impartially, without trying to judge, the various world religions, such as Bhuddism, Islam, and so on. The section on Christianity had a wonderful section the crystalized my uneasiness of people who insist that the Bible is dictated Word of God, and is therefore completely free from any form of error, including the fact that PI is 3, etc., etc. "The other controlling perspective in Protestantism has come to be called the Protestant Principle. Stated philosophically, it warns against absolutizing the relative; stated theologically it warns against idolatry. "The point is this. Man's allegiance belongs to God --- this all religions (with allowance for terminology) will affirm. God, however, is beyond nature and history. He is not removed from these, but he cannot be equated with either or any of its parts, for while the world is emphatically finite, God is infinite. With these truths all the great religions in principle agree. They are, however, very hard truths to keep in mind; so hard that men continually let them slip and proceed to equate God with something they can see or touch or at least conceptualize more precisely than the infinite. Of old they equated him with statues, and men called Prophets --- the first "protestants" or protesters on this decisive point --- rose up to denounce their transpositions, dubbing their pitiful substitutes idols, or "little pieces of form." Later men stopped deifying wood and stone, but this did not mean that idolatry had ended. While the secular world proceeded to absolutize the state or the self or man's intellect, Christians fell to absolutizing dogmas, sacraments, the church, the Bible, or personal religious experience. To think that Protestantism devalues these or doubts that God is involved in them is to seriously misjudge its stance. But it does determinedly insist that none of them {\em is} God. All of them, being involved in history, are mixtures of the divine with the human; and since the human is never perfect, these instruments partake of relativity and imperfection too. As long as each points beyond itself to God, it is invaluable. But let any claim man's absolute or unreserved allegiance --- which is to same claim to usurp God's place --- and it becomes diabolical. For this, according to tradition, is what the devil is, --- the highest angel, who, not content to be second, determined to be God himself. "In the name of the sovereign God who transcends all the limitations and distortions of finite existence, therefore, every human claim to absolute truth or finality must be rejected. Some examples will indicate what this Principle means in practice. Protestants cannot accept the dogma of papal infallibility because this would involve removing from criticism forever opinions which, being channeled through a human mind, can never (in the Protestant view) wholly escape the risk of limitation and partial error. Creeds and pronouncements can be believed; they can be believed fully and wholeheartedly. But to place them beyond the cleansing cross fire of challenge and criticism is to absolutize something finite --- to elevate ``a little piece of form'' to the position that should be reserved for God alone. "Instances of what Protestants consider idolatry are not confined to other sects or religions. Protestants admit that as the tendency to absolutize the relative is universal, it occurs among them as much as anywhere, bringing the need for continual self-criticism and reformation within Protestantism itself. The chief Protestant idolatry has been Bibliolatry. Protestants do believe that God speaks to man through the Bible as in no other way. But to elevate it as a book to a point above criticism, to insist that every word and letter was dictated directly by God and so can contain no historical, scientific, or other inaccuracies, is again to forget that in entering the world God's word must speak through human minds. Another common instance of idolatry within Protestantism has been the deification of private religious experience. Protestant insistence that faith must be a living experience has often led her constituents to assume that any vital experience must be the working of the Holy Spirit. Perhaps so, but again it is never pure Spirit. The Spirit must work through man so that what is received is never uncompounded. "By rejecting all such absolute Protestantism tries to keep faith with the First Commandment, ``Thou shalt have no other gods before me.'' The injunction contains a predominately negative ring. Is not a Protestant a person who protests against something? This, as we have seen, is certainly true; he protests without ceasing the usurpation of God's place by anything less than God. But the Protestant Principle can just as well be put positively, which is how it should be put to get its full point. It protests against idolatry because it testifies for (pro-testant = one who testifies for) God's sovereign place in human life. "Is not this concept of Christianity freighted with danger? The Protestant readily admits that it is. First, there is the danger of misconceiving God's word. If, as the Protestant Principle insists, all things human are imperfect, does it not follow that each individual's vision of God must at least be limited and possibly quite erroneous? It does. Protestantism not only admits this; it insists on it. But as the fact happens to be true, how much better to recognize it and open the door to the corrections of the Holy Spirit working through other minds than to saddle Christendom with what is in fact limited truth masquerading as finality. As Jesus himself says: ``I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth.'' (John 16:12-13.) One very important reason for restricting final loyalty to the transcendent God is to keep the future open." =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Theodore Ts'o bloom-beacon!mit-athena!tytso 3 Ames St., Cambridge, MA 02139 tytso@athena.mit.edu Everybody's playing the game, but nobody's rules are the same!