Introduction
See Chapter 1
Chapter 2
Following along with Candy Brauer’s reading of this e-book.
I’m going to feature what I feel are the most interesting/important parts of Chapter 3 and respond to those. Dr. Gipp in italic and my thoughts following.
Anyone who has ever played a game, been involved in any kind of competition, or conducted any type of scientific investigation knows that “ground rules” must be established at the beginning. It is far better to know the rules before beginning the investigation rather than to try to establish them as you go.
If we are going to make a study of the preservation of the Word of God, the rules we shall follow must be established now. The rules we establish now will have a direct effect on the conclusion reached at the end of our investigation. We must be cautious as we seek to found these rules.
The first question naturally popped into my mind is, on whose authority are you authorized to “found rules?”
We must free ourselves from prejudice.
Which brought a grin to my face considering this book is hosted on the anti-Catholic Jack Chick site!!!
We must establish rules which, firstly, will not contradict each other and, secondly, rules that can and will be applied fairly to all evidence examined.
I’m still back on the authority-for-establishing-rules-in-the-first-place thing. Nonetheless I do agree that when one is playing a game, these see like fair regulations.
As in any issue with two sides, the conclusion can not please all. Those to whom the conclusion is favorable will commend the investigation for its fairness, while those to whom the conclusion is unfavorable will obviously seek to discredit the method used in arriving at such a conclusion.
With this in mind, the most important portion of our investigation will not be what evidence we examine, but the rules by which we interpret that evidence.
Nonsense. Of course it is important in any study or investigation to examine all of the evidence. This paragraph reminded me a lot about some of the later works of John Boswell on homosexuality by his fellow historians for making the evidence fit his conclusion and not the other way around.
Much of the material to be examined is not new but holds huge amounts of truth which have been locked up and unusable due to the previously unfair method by which its testimony was evaluated. To insure that this testimony will be thoroughly heard in an unprejudiced court room, this writer seeks to establish plain, unprejudiced, and spiritually sound rules by which to judge the witnesses.
Translation, Dr. Gipp has just made himself judge and jury.
The voices of some learned men will no doubt be heard to protest, while the voices of others, equally as learned, will be heard to agree. The writer will not appeal to either of these voices for approval but will seek to establish rules which even those who disagree with the conclusion must admit are fair. These rules will judge all the evidence fairly and completely so as to wring every bit of worthwhile testimony from them.
Does anyone remember the introduction and Chapter 1 where we were promised “facts.” Thus far those have been few and far between. The rhetoric and theatrics however have been quite thick! We have yet to go through any bible history either. We have had three chapters and we haven’t even begun to touch on how the old testament was written, in what language, the septuagint or anything else related to “history.”
The next part of the article Dr. Gipp tries to persuade the reader from the bible that the bible is a spiritual book and that God was involved with its inception. This part is interesting:
19 “We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”
Note that Peter is stating that the written Word is more sure than God speaking from heaven, a voice which Peter himself heard (vs. 17, 18).
Interesting and odd interpretation. Dr. Gipp is setting the reader up for his next part of the chapter in which he denigrates his fellow evangelists in favor of his interpretation of “the written word.”
I also found it interesting that he says.
But written words are not so fluid. When God chose to put His words down in writing, He made an irreversible decision.
That may be so, but as the many breaks in Christianity illustrate, the interpretations of those written words is very fluid!
Dr. Gipp then gives a shot at trying to show the reader the importance of sola scriptura.
God wants us to see that He had His hand in it from the beginning. The words of those original autographs were not the thoughts of God, but His very words, which brings to mind a question. Why did God inspire His word perfectly? Obviously the answer comes back, “So that man could have every word of God, pure, complete, trustworthy, and without error.” Amen! That statement touches the heart of any fundamental, Bible-believing Christian. And yet, what if God gave those precious words only to those early writers, then lost them in history, diluted them with heretical teachings, and then locked them up in prison where few could visit them and none could trust them? What if these words and manuscripts, which have long passed off the scene, were the only perfect words God ever gave us? What if it was impossible for us ever to obtain those words for ourselves, in this present generation?
Yea, what if.
Luckily God gave us the CHURCH to preserve the written word, to determine the canon of the bible, and to secure them for future generations. The bible exists because of the church, not the other way around.
The question is: Could God, who overcame time (about 1,700 years transpired from the writing of the oldest Old Testament book to the closing of the New Testament in 90 A.D.1) and man’s human nature to write the Bible perfectly in the first place, do the same thing to preserve it?
Absolutely. He did so within the pillar of truth, the church, under the authority of the apostles with Peter and their successors.
Now a little fun with proof texting.
Let us look to see what the authority says about such a thing happening.
Psalm 12:6, 7 “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.”
Note verse seven! “THOU shalt keep them O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.”
Note that the verse does not say only the written words of the Lord are pure words! Writing isn’t even implied in the verse.
Why is it that men of faith sound out their convictions so loudly on the above mentioned doctrines (and others) in which their faith cannot be pressed to the limit, but they suddenly shrink from the thought that God, who could write His Book perfectly, could preserve it?
I wonder if this is a non-Catholic Christian concern? As a Catholic, knowing that the scriptures have been preserved by the Magisterium through the ages, I never worry about it!
He goes on for a few more paragraphs trying to persuade the reader that God could preserve the bible and in doing so he is very very careful to avoid making any mention of the Catholic church. A truly discerning reader will want to ask:
How did the books of the bible come together into what we call the bible?
Under whose authority was this done?
Those two questions are key.
Dr. Gipp ends with two rules that I just make note of here. I don’t necessarily disagree with them, but I think the true key of this chapter is that he was trying to persuade the reader that the bible is inspired and preserved, and that he was trying to do it without any mention of the historical contributions of the Catholic church. I think his logistics in avoiding that “fact” make the entire chapter fall flat.
——————————————————————————–
Please browse my eBay items!
Visit my new Amazon Store!
