Critiquing: Are We Limiting God by Putting Him in the “Box” of Scripture?

November 16, 2023 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Limiting God — Missing Verses — Bible’s Trustworthiness — Authoritative List — Canon Formation

---

Introduction

The content discusses whether believers limit God by confining Him to the 66 books of Scripture and addresses skepticism about the Bible’s completeness and trustworthiness. Below is an evaluation of the logical coherence of the arguments presented, identifying any logical inconsistencies, fallacies, and cognitive biases.

Main Arguments and Logical Coherence

Limiting God to 66 Books

Claim: “What if God himself limited himself to these 66 books?” This argument posits that God chose to limit divine revelation to the canonical books.

Evaluation:

• Circular Reasoning: The content assumes that the 66 books are divinely chosen without providing external validation beyond scriptural assertions. This is circular because it uses the premise (the Bible’s authority) to prove the conclusion (the Bible’s completeness).
• False Dilemma: The argument presents a binary choice—either God limited Himself to 66 books, or humans are restricting Him. This ignores other possibilities, such as additional revelations or alternative interpretations of divine will.

Quote:

“What if God himself limited himself to these 66 books?”

Addressing Missing Verses

Claim: The concern about missing verses and the Bible being untrustworthy due to corporate ownership.

Evaluation:

• Straw Man Fallacy: The content implies that skepticism about the Bible’s completeness equates to an uninformed opinion, without engaging with nuanced scholarly critiques.
• Red Herring: The argument diverts by discussing manuscript variations and textual criticism rather than directly addressing the impact of potentially missing verses on theological doctrines.

Quote:

“There are things that are missing in some manuscripts, but there are so many manuscripts to compare one with another that the lacuna really jumps out.”

Trustworthiness of the Bible

Claim: The Bible’s trustworthiness despite manuscript variations and corporate influence.

Evaluation:

• Ad Hominem: The content dismisses critics by suggesting they lack understanding or are misinformed, rather than addressing their arguments substantively.
• Hasty Generalization: The broad claim that all manuscripts are reliable because textual critics have reconstructed the original texts fails to account for unresolved scholarly debates.

Quote:

“I think what I would do, Laurie, is ask your friend to explain what the evidence is for what she believes about missing verses.”

Authority of the Canon

Claim: The 66 books are an authoritative list recognized by early church fathers.

Evaluation:

• Appeal to Tradition: The argument relies heavily on the authority of early church fathers without critically examining the processes and potential biases involved in the canon’s formation.
• Appeal to Authority: The reliance on experts like Dan Wallace and J. Warner Wallace to validate the canon’s authority without addressing counter-expertise.

Quote:

“The early church fathers understood the 66 books of this particular testament to be that because their source was authoritative.”

The Role of Cognitive Biases

Confirmation Bias

The content demonstrates confirmation bias by interpreting evidence in a way that confirms pre-existing beliefs about the Bible’s completeness and divine authority.

Quote:

“We can be confident that we have everything that was originally written.”

In-Group Bias

The discussion reflects in-group bias by favoring interpretations and arguments from within the Christian tradition and dismissing external critiques.

Quote:

“It’s not until, you know, the third century or fourth century. Do you have this authoritative list of authoritative books?”

Unsubstantiated and Dubious Claims

Several claims lack substantial evidence or are presented as self-evident truths without proper substantiation:

• Claim: “God has given us everything we need to know to know him truly.”
  • Explanation: This statement assumes complete knowledge of divine will based solely on the canonical books, ignoring alternative theological perspectives.
• Claim: “Even the Roman church who offers additional sources of authoritative information, at least they seek to make the case.”
  • Explanation: This assumes the Roman Catholic Church’s additional texts lack merit without critically engaging with their theological justifications.

Quote:

“God has given us everything we need to know to know him truly.”

Obligation to Substantiate Claims

All claims, especially those of a significant nature like divine revelation, require robust substantiation. This involves:

• Providing empirical evidence or logical arguments to support assertions.
• Engaging with counterarguments and critiques comprehensively.
• Ensuring transparency in the reasoning process to allow for independent verification.

Testing Alleged Promises of God

To test any alleged promises of God, one could:

1. Formulate Clear, Testable Hypotheses: Define specific, observable outcomes that are predicted by divine promises.
2. Gather Empirical Data: Collect evidence from historical records, scientific studies, and personal testimonies.
3. Analyze Outcomes: Compare the predicted outcomes with actual data to evaluate the validity of the promises.
4. Peer Review: Subject findings to scrutiny by both supporters and skeptics to ensure objectivity and rigor.

Mapping Belief to Evidence

It is crucial to align one’s degree of belief with the degree of available evidence. This involves:

• Critical Examination: Assessing all claims rigorously and impartially.
• Proportional Belief: Holding beliefs with a strength proportional to the quality and quantity of evidence supporting them.
• Openness to Revision: Being willing to adjust beliefs in light of new evidence or better arguments.

Conclusion

The content presents several arguments defending the completeness and trustworthiness of the Bible’s 66 books, but it suffers from logical fallacies, cognitive biases, and unsubstantiated claims. A more coherent approach would involve engaging critically with counterarguments, providing robust evidence for all claims, and aligning beliefs with the degree of available evidence. This critique highlights the need for rigorous examination and openness to diverse perspectives in theological discussions.

---

Feel free to discuss these arguments further in the comments section.