Beware! The Naked Bible » MSH

Heresiarch, Michael Heisner, Logos.com

Logos just gave me a free study bible connected to the Lexham Bible and the Lexham Bible Dictionary. "Wonderful!" I thought. But then I wanted to find out the theological biases of the editors and commentators in the Faith Life Bible. Oh, oh. Here's what I found. It's connected an individual editor named Michael Heisner, who apparently works for Logos.

Like most heretics he sides with the Anabaptists and the Radical Reformation.  Creeds have almost no authority whatsoever and neither do confessions of faith.  The Bible is really just a Rorschach inkblot where the reader responds however he feels like responding.  Forget logic.  Forget doctrine.  Just go with the force, Luke!

I knew it was too good to be true.  Be wary of those bearing free gifts on the internet.  It usually comes with heretical baggage!  Here is Heisner's irrational self-contradiction:

While I’m not anti-creedal, I am opposed to treating creeds as though they are the final word on articulating biblical theology. Creeds are selective, historically-conditioned, limited by their context and the resources available to their formulators, and often agenda-driven. I’m more concerned with what the text says and what it can sustain in the way of interpretation than I am with creeds, especially if they are recent (read: English-Bible based and flavored with the hermeneutics of 20th century evangelicalism). I also have what I think is a healthy disdain for the trendiness of academia and its own brand of self-assured dogmatics.  I’d be a happier guy if every graduate student in biblical studies and theology was forced to take courses in logic and critical thinking.  That’ll happen right after the Cubs win the World Series.

If Heisner really believed in logic he would know that the Bible requires an interpretation and ALL interpretations are therefore fallible.  Perhaps he has never heard of Gordon H. Clark and Clark's axiom that the Bible is the Word of God and the Westminster Standards are the best systematic and logical summary of Christian doctrine.  If we take Heisner's view, that would mean that there is no consensus or authority for the Bible since for there to be any authority at all there must be a standard for doctrine.  Essential doctrine is still fallibly systematized by men.  That's where official creeds and confessions come into play.  Heisner would have us to believe his opinion trumps logic, creeds, confessions, and even Scripture!  Is he the pope?  It would do us well to remember this:

Article VIII

Of the Three Creeds

The three Creeds, Nicene Creed, Athanasius' Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles' Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed; for they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture.

De Tribus Symbolis

Symbola tria, Nicaenum, Athanasii, et quod vulgo Apostolorum appellatur omnino recipienda sunt et credenda; Scripturarum testimoniis probari possunt.

Provenance

Composed by the English reformers in 1552/3.

If Heisner thinks there is no creed or confession that can be "proved from most certain warrants of Holy Scripture," then that would apply to his own lone ranger "confession" or "creed" as well.  The word for "creed" comes from the Latin verb, "credo," or "I believe."  Christian, what do you believe?  "I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth . . ."  Heisner's view is on the same level as that of Michael Servetus.  There is no certainty for what Scripture means except as a subjective and individualistic reading.  For Heisner the principle for interpreting Scripture implies solo scriptura, not sola Scriptura.

The heading of the page at the Naked Bible site says:  "The Naked Bible: Biblical theology, stripped bare of denominational confessions and theological systems."  I guess it's stripped bare of any authority except Michael Heisner's lone ranger opinion--which, by the way, isn't worth the electrons on your computer screen!

In reading the Lexham Bible Dictionary it seems at first reading that the biases of the editors and the commentators is not Reformed for Calvinistic.  In that regard I would offer a word of caution and the same goes for Heisner's notes in the Faithlife Study Bible.

My recommendation if you are looking for a good free study Bible is to go with the NET Bible, which interacts with original language issues of translation and textual criticism from a more Reformed or Calvinistic perspective.  Daniel Wallace is one of the editors there.

Click here to read more about the Faithlife Study Bible as it is based on the Naked Bible:  The Naked Bible » MSH