No Book Or No Brains?: The Case For The Bible’s Enduring Authority

          Feodor wrote an article in which he denigrates religious believers who appeal to the text of the Bible as an objective standard to test the veracity of doctrinal claims:

          https://signmovesreality.blogspot.com/2025/03/not-book.html

          “In John 14, Jesus makes clear that after him the Holy Spirit will come to us, as his disciples, to ‘teach us everything’ and to build us up in love. No mention of a book.”

          This is a selective reading of John 14. While Jesus does promise the Spirit’s guidance, he also consistently affirms the authority of the Bible elsewhere (John 5:39; Matthew 5:17–18). The Spirit’s role is not to replace Scripture, but to illuminate it. To say “no mention of a book” ignores the broader biblical witness where Jesus himself appeals to the written word as authoritative.

          “A lot of bible worshippers love idolatry.”

          This statement is polemical rather than theological. Reverence for Scripture is not idolatry; Christians honor the Bible as God’s word, not as a deity.

          “So what is scripture for? Exactly what it does: to point us to the Incarnation of God, Jesus the Christ, and to the sustainer of faith and love, God the Holy Spirit. With God the Father, then, scripture tells us to worship the Holy Trinity. Not itself.”

          This reduces Scripture to a mere pointer. While Scripture certainly directs us to Christ, it is also revelation in itself, living and active (Hebrews 4:12). The claim that Scripture “tells us to worship the Trinity, not itself” is true in principle, but it wrongly implies that honoring Scripture as authoritative is somehow misplaced. The church has always confessed that Scripture is God’s word to man, not simply a signpost.

          “Scripture even itself encodes the teaching that faithful attention to God’s revelation will build wisdom beyond scripture.”

          The phrase “beyond scripture” introduces a problematic dichotomy. The sufficiency of Scripture (2 Timothy 3:17) means that while the Holy Spirit illuminates, He does not lead believers into truths that contradict or bypass the written text itself. To suggest wisdom “beyond” the Word of God is arrogance at its finest.

          “In Acts 11, Peter rushes back to Jerusalem to explain to the elders that he accepted Gentiles Christians only after the Holy Spirit has to berate him 3 times to so.”

          This retelling exaggerates the narrative. Acts 10–11 shows Peter receiving a vision and confirmation by the Spirit, but Peter explicitly recalls Jesus’ words: “John baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 11:16). His decision is grounded in Christ’s prior teaching, not merely in subjective spiritual pressure. The Spirit and Scripture work together, not in opposition to or independently of each other.

          “And again in Ephesians, Paul writes, ‘… how the mystery was made known to me by revelation…’”

          Paul does acknowledge revelation by the Spirit, but he then inscribes it into Scripture. The very passage cited demonstrates how private revelation becomes public, authoritative teaching through writing. Without Scripture, Paul’s insight would remain inaccessible. Thus, the Spirit’s revelation is preserved and transmitted through the written word.

          “Took us 1800 years to begin to believe that White women, too, were fully engaged by the Spirit. 1900 years to accept black people as full Christians. Took another 100 to accept gay and lesbian people as Christian.”

          This is revisionist history, as it is falsely assumes that Christianity was uniformly exclusionary until certain milestones. Further, delays in applying spiritual truths reflect human sin, not the inadequacy of biblical texts.

          “Holy Scripture still teaches us, too, because it is densely layered, filled with analogical examples and cries of the human spirit. But 2000 years old, it needs interpretation. It’s not a lash.”

          Scripture does require interpretation, but its age does not diminish its authority. Jesus himself declared, “Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35). To say that it is “not a lash” trivializes its corrective role. Paul insists Scripture is useful for rebuke as well as encouragement (2 Timothy 3:16). It is both comfort and discipline, not merely inspiration.

          “The natural and supernatural worlds are not separate and they do not collide. They each ground and reinterpret the other.”

          This is philosophical speculation rather than biblical teaching. Romans 1 affirms that nature reveals God’s power, but Scripture interprets nature, not vice versa. To say the natural world “reinterprets” revelation subordinates God’s word to human observation, which historically leads to relativism.

          “Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.”

          This citation is accurate, but Paul’s argument continues: humanity suppresses this truth and falls into idolatry without Scripture. General revelation is sufficient to condemn, but not to save the lost soul. Special revelation, Scripture, is necessary for the gospel.