CANONICAL FALSE GOSPELS?

Semper Reformanda - Always Reforming. Courtesy of James Lawson.

AUTHOR'S NOTE - I wrote this a few years ago as a Facebook note. I've decided to make this my Reformation Day post for the year. So, Happy Reformation Day!

 Just when you think you've heard everything.

In an internet group, someone was claiming the Letter of James was a false gospel and that the half-brother of Jesus was the organizer of the Judaizers Paul condemned when writing to the Galatians. The person making that claim was asked if he was implying that James' letter shouldn't be included in Scripture.

No, he insisted James belonged in the Canon of Scripture so we'd know what his false teaching looked like.

If he stopped at James being a Judaizer and his Epistle being a false gospel, I would think he's wrong and outside the mainstream, but he's not the first to have problems with James and the apparent conflict with Paul's grace theology. The church leaders deciding on the canon dealt with the same question. Martin Luther called that book "An epistle of straw" (though he later changed his mind). Les Feldick believes Christian theology should be based on Paul, and that James and the other general epistles were written for Jews, not the Church. Calling James a false gospel is a step further, but I would consider that an error.

The idea that a false gospel could be canonical, however, is what I consider a very dangerous idea that must be defeated. Allow me to give three reasons why.

1. It leads to confusion.

If God wanted James in there as a false gospel so we'd see the error, have we missed others? The Jesus Seminar suggested we should add the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas - maybe that should be to show the error of Gnosticism. Many consider Mormonism, Christian Science, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Prosperity Gospel to be false teaching - should they be included as well so we can see what the error looks like?

Let's go a step further. Protestants and Jews do not accept the deutero-canonical books (aka the Catholic apocrypha) because they don't feel they pass the test of being canonical. If we allow false gospels in, what right do we have to exclude these writings?

Now, there are false statements in Scripture. For example, the false prophecy of Hananiah in Jeremiah's day, or the errant theology of Job's friends. But in both cases, these errors are in context with the error being refuted. Let me add another refuted false teaching - that of the Judaizers, which Paul deals with in his letter to the Galatians. (Which calls to question the need for a book of Judazing teaching, as James is proposed of being, since the heresy is dealt with already in Scripture.)

This leads to why this view is dangerous. If a book that is strictly false teaching is included in Scripture without refutation, someone might assume its inclusion is an endorsement, and that false gospel is treated as God's truth. And if the person calling James a false gospel is correct, this has happened, because a near-unaminous majority of believers are convinced James is just as much the true word of God as the rest of the Biblical authors.

Furthermore, who decides which books are God's Word and which are false Gospels? My friend seems to consider himself that sort of authority, since most people don't agree with him. But someone else might differ. I had one friend who didn't think Esther needed to be in Scripture, and another who thought there were missing books that needed to be added to the Bible's 66 but when his Bible came out, he left out Song of Solomon.

2. It undermines the authority of Scripture.

A common myth is that the Catholic Church picked the books that fit its political view and omitted other equally worthy books. Not so. The process of Canonization determined on a basis of certain qualifications which books were included and which weren't. There were books that missed one of the qualificatons that were discussed before being included. For example, the question about who wrote Hebrews. Or Esther not mentioning the name of God. Or Jude including quotes from apocryphal books.

By the way, where did the word "canon" come from? One view is that it is taken from the Hebrew word qaneh, which means a cane or measuring stick. Thus, Scripture is a guide if something is consistent with God's Wrod or if it isn't. This was one of the tests - does a book contradict with other Scripture? Case in point is whether James' "Faith Without Works Is Dead" is countering Paul's emphasis on justification by faith. With careful study, though, there is no contradiction between James and Paul.

Furthermore, Scripture talks about itself as being true and having come directly from God, such as Psalm 12:6, Psalm 119:160, Isaiah 8:20, Romans 15:4, 2 Timothy 3:16-17, and 2 Peter 1:21. Including a false gospel as Canon would invalidate these verses, and if we take the next step, we'll see the biggest danger of canonical false gospels.

3. It attacks the character of God.

I will state that I sincerely doubt the person claiming James is a canonical false gospel would imagine he's doing this, but this argument unknowingly does so. Let me explain why I feel so strongly.

As stated before, the Bible is God's Word, spoken by God. Scripture also says God cannot lie (Numbers 23:19, Titus 1:2, Hebrews 6:18). A false gospel is a lie. If a false gospel is canonical, then God is inspiring the author to write a lie. Thus, there are only three conclusions:

1) James is a false gospel and also canonical, which means God isnpired a lie and the Bible, which states He cannot lie, is worthless and not to be trusted;

2) James is a false gospel, and since God cannot lie, it cannot be canonical, or

3) James is canonical, and since God cannot lie, it cannot be a false gospel.

What is the reason for this theory of canonical false gospels? I consider it similar to those who say the Bible is corrupted, who claim the Bible is not sufficient, or that passages that have a clear literal meaning don't really mean what they say. The reason is that the person has a belief that is inconsistent with the rest of Scripture.

Let's look at those who think the Bible is corrupted. None ever produce proof of an uncorrupted Bible (at least until they show up to revive the uncorrupted Scripture, they claim). New Agers claim it's corrupted because the original Bible (they claim) agrees with them on reincarnation. Muslims say the uncorrupted Scripture contains prophecies of Mohammed. The House of Yahweh claims Catholics corrupted Scripture by adding in verses about the Trinity and Sunday Worship. In other words, it's always subjective. Of course, those making the claim cannot be wrong, and they don't have the guts to say the Bible's wrong, so they all blame those evil Catholics - even though they don't agree with each other's reasons for the Bible being corrupted.

The bottom line is we need to trust the Bible to be right 100% of the time, to trust the Word of God and not of men. There is no false gospel in the Canon.

THE LONG ROAD TO MARTYRDOM - A LOOK AT IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH

 

Ignatius of Antioch

I believe it was last year that I saw a meme which said, "If I get killed by a mountain lion, know that my last words were 'Here, kitty, kitty.'" Is it possible that those were the last words of a church father?

 

There are a pair of Saint Ignatiuses. My guess is the better known one is Ignatius of Loyola (1491-1556), founder of the Jesuit movement. Fourteen hundred years earlier was the Saint he was probably named after, Ignatius of Antioch. Note of interest: Before moving to Indy, Becky and I lived in the part of Nashville, TN known as Antioch, and we were about a mile from St. Ignatius of Antioch Catholic Church.

Ignatius (from here on in this blog, "Ignatius" refers to the one from Antioch) was the first Church Father dealt with in Getting to Know the Church Fathers: An Evangelical Introduction by Bryan Litfin. We know very few details about his life; the year his death was set approximately at 115, at that death was assumed to be via a lion or the like in the Roman Colesium. How long he lived, why was he arrested and sent to Rome for execution, and what the name of Budd Abbott's famous third baseman was all have the same answer: "I don't know."

Here are the few facts we know of Ignatius:

• He was a bishop from Antioch of Syria, the city where followers of Jesus were first called Christians, from where Paul started his three missionary journeys. It is possible that Ignatius may have known of Paul, though it might have been as a child.
• He was arrested and traveled to Rome, writing seven letters during the journey. During a holdover in Smyrna, Asia Minor. he was visited there by Smyrna's bishop Polycarp -if you're not familiar with him, look up his inspiring martyrdom defense at age 86 - and bishops from other neighboring cities including one name Onesimus (Philemon's former slave?), who came to encourage their captive brother. Five of his letters were to churches that sent representatives to him along the journey, with the other two being a personal note to Polycarp and a letter to the Church in Rome asking them not to interfere in any way with his martyrdom.
  

We often think of the church of the first three centuries as being persecuted from without but faithful to Christ. That picture is not true. In his ministry in Antioch, he faced two different forms of false teaching that despite their differences shared a dangerous similarity: Both minimized the value and necessity of Jesus' death and resurrection.

On one hand are the Judaizers. You may remember that the important Council in Jerusalem was convened due to Paul and Barnabas being confronted in Antioch following the first missionary journey by believing Pharisees who stated the Gentile converts needed to be circumcised. Antioch was also the location where Paul publicly rebuked Peter for giving mixed messages about the Gospel by changing his eating partners when they had Jewish visitors sent by James. If you think the verdict of the Jerusalem Council and Paul's letter to the Galatians ended the conflict, guess again. I've seen groups today 2000 years later still Judaizing believers, as well as other forms of legalistic teaching. 

How does this teaching weaken the Christian faith? Simple. Christ's death was not enough for salvation. God's grace is not sufficient. Rather, we need to help God save us by obeying Him.

On the other hand were early Gnostics. The emphasis of Gnostics is knowledge, and they believed Jesus came to be a spiritual teacher, a guru if you will. They held to a belief called Docetism, which had little problem of Christ being deity but a big problem with His humanity. For them, it was not necessary for Him to be born, and much less for Him to die a tortuous death. Instead, we are saved by knowledge, by mystical teachings of Jesus (as well as other Gnostic leaders).

What is the solution? Ignatius proposed the concept of a single bishop in each city. The purpose was not to give authority to that bishop but for the sake of unity. The church needs to be unified by both truth and love. Too many focus so intently on one or the other that they don't focus enough on the other.

As I hinted in describing his letter to Rome, Ignatius did not consider a painful criminal's death as a mark of failure. Rather, he viewed it as the cry of a victor, that his demise validated his stands against the Judaizers and the Docetists. Ignatius asked the Romans not to interfere with his martyrdom, and added that some of the wild beasts were on the timid side, so he planned to coax them to eat him. Is it possible that Ignatius' final words were the Greek equivalent of "Here, kitty kitty?"

Are you willing to die an unpleasant death for the sake of Christ? Do you deal with either legalists (including but not limited to Judaizers) or with those who relegate Jesus to being a wise teacher rather than a Sacrifice and Savior? What are you doing to encourage (or discourage) unity in your local church? Do you support, encourage, and even submit to your church leader(s) for the sake of unity and the Gospel?