Chapter 2

This week www.keepingthehome.com was supposed to read and examine chapter 2 of An Understandable History of the Bible, by Dr. Samuel Gipp. As of 3:30 eastern time, Candy has not posted anything on the chapter. I will give my impression and perhaps add to it after she posts her offering.

Again in this chapter, we are not really dealing with any “facts” as we were promised in the introduction. This is not a chapter that deals with logic, reason and fact per se.

The fourth paragraph however, is a rather good paraphrase of the Nicene creed and I enjoyed reading it!

The first three paragraphs dealt I felt dealt a lot with the uncertainty and lack of cohesiveness to be found outside of the the authority of the Magisterium. It was interesting to me as a Catholic to read Dr. Gipp’s sincere attempt to grapple with that.

The third and fourth sections of this chapter I felt were a classic example of logical fallacies, particularly circular reasoning and appeal to authority. In a nut shell it seemed as if Dr. Gipp is saying, the bible is authoritatively the word of God, because the bible tells us authoritatively that it is the word of God.

So does the Koran and the Book of Mormon, yet I doubt that Dr. Gipp would accept the authority of those books, simply because they say so!

As a Catholic, of course I think the Bible is authoritative (just not solely authoritative) but I think a Christian should be able to defend it on historical and theological positions that are more compelling and persuasive to unbelievers than “because the bible says so!”

I anxiously await Mrs. Brauer’s take on it.

*************Update**********

Here was Candy’s take:
The Bible is the most powerful book in existence. However, if a Christian questions having an accurate Bible, then what holds their faith together?

What held it together for centuries before the bible as we know it existed? What held faith together for the poor and illiterate who neither owned or could read a bible? What held it together before the printing press?

The fullness of the faith is in the church which was founded by Jesus Christ – which is the pillar of truth (1 Timothy)

If they believe that they are reading a corrupted Bible, then aren’t they just “playing religion?”

Not necessarily. A scholar of ancient languages could be an atheist and still be able to determine huge errors in translation for example.

After all, if you don’t know FOR SURE that you’re saved through Jesus’ blood, then what’s the point?

A red hering logical fallacy. The early Christians for example believed in Salvation through Jesus without ever seeing a printed bible. Belief in Christ is not necessarily dependent on the existence of a bound and printed bible. The early church is proof of that.

The Bible is our final authority, it is inerrant, and we will soon see. 😀

Sola Scriptura is not scriptural. But I await Dr. Gipp’s study on the matter.

In chapter one we had our appetizer. Now we just had the salad. Next weeks’ chapter starts off the main course. Are you ready? ;-P

So far I have not be as impressed with the nutrients provided in these chapters as Mrs. Brauer has. But I will continue to read along.