|
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| Sola Scriptura? |
|
| |
 I think that it's time that we Protestants admit our failure to live up to sola scriptura and Orthodox and Catholics learn what the phrase really means.
The oldest Christians, the Orthodox and their later cousins Roman Catholics often accuse we Protestants of being hypocritical in our claim of sola scriptura, and they do have a valid point. No Protestant follows that ideal perfectly. We all have our own traditions, "popes" and gurus that we allow to interpret Holy Scripture for us.
Protestants follow Luther, Calvin, Wesley and a host of other such Protestant "popes" if you care. Our Magisterium is not in Rome. It is first class theology like that found in the New International Commentary, the Word Biblical Commentary or perhaps a less scholarly version, such as Matthew Henry's Commentary. In some cases, it is poorly educated televangelists who are our popes and magesteria, those who interpret Holy Scripture for us.
Catholics rightly point out that they use both the Bible and tradition to formulate their doctrines. Protestants will point out that Catholic and indeed Orthodox tradition is a long history of biblical interpretation mixed with folk lore and in some cases pagan syncretism. However, we Protestants too have mixed biblical interpretation with modern Hinduism, Druid and other pagan religions. Nobody is perfect. So, does all this mean that sola scriptura is a bad idea?
Actually, if we really followed sola scriptura, instead of just mouthed it, we all might be a lot more unified. If we said things like, "Well you know the Bible does not say much about tongues, alcohol, apostolic succession, the mode of baptism, whether or not the bread transubstantiates or is just a symbol, and it says absolutely nothing about praying to Mary, Rome's supremacy, iconography and nowhere demands celibacy for pastors. So all those things are not important enough to be divided over." If we said things like that, not only would we be honest, but more unified.
The Protestant cry of sola scriptura is more accurately and practically one of: "Let's put the Bible in its rightful place, as of first importance in Christian doctrine." Protestant theologians will also concur that inside the Bible, we should put Jesus ahead of Paul and Moses. Popes, Protestant Reformers, Televangelists and Orthodox Patriarchs may all be nice folks, but none, NONE is infallible, 100% trustworthy. Jesus is. Before we listen to any preacher, any pope, any guru or self-styled prophet or so-called apostle, let's listen to Jesus. Only Jesus is 100% trustworthy! |
|
| To leave a comment or start your own blog: |
 |
or |
 |
Already a member? Login |
|
|
|
|
Gene |
 |
April 04, 2008 at 8:58pm |
|
There are traditions that help us to "remember" what it is that God has for us. "Write these things on your door post!" Then the doorpost kiss becomes a tradition. (Tevye look out!)
As long as we place God and His Word first, the sola scriptura is to be placed in perspective. God's word has the answers and we need not take the word of man for its meaning. That, however, does not mean that we do not listen to reasonable folks and learn from experiences of others. |
|
|
It is a nice theory, but even if every Christian put the Scriptures first they still would be subject to interpretation. That is why it is so important to ask the Holy Spirit to guide you in all truth, but also let Scripture interpret the Scriptrue. But being men who are darkened in our understanding eventhough we have been exposed to the light of God, are still subject to make mistakes, or to misunderstand. You are right though saying that we are hypociritical to say our values, opinions, and beliefs are based soley on the Scriptures. We all have had a myriad of influences on our life and this has caused us to interpret the Word as we see it and understand it. There is a truth and the Bible is the truth but knowing that truth only comes in knowing Jesus who is the living word and the truth!
Thanks Grant. |
|
|
Grant |
|
April 04, 2008 at 11:38pm |
|
 I agree whole heartedly. We will misinterpret Holy Scripture -- even the best experts. However, if we start there in the text, instead of starting with secondary writings or interpretations, from the ancient writings of the Fathers to the latest exegetical commentary, as good as they are, are nothing compared to reading the very words recorded that Jesus said. I also believe that when we read the Bible it is those words that the Holy Spirit is most interested in illuminating to our understanding. |
|
|
| Many have misunderstood the doctrine of sola Scriptura by confusing how we come to know what the Bible says with the Bible being the sole basis of doctrinal authority. But surely how one comes to know about something bears no reflection on the legitimacy of that source being exclusive. For example, suppose the sole witness to a crime is deposed as saying, "I saw the defendant kill the victim in shorts!" and we are left with the ambiguous interpretation as to who exactly was wearing the shorts (i.e., did he mean to say "I was wearing shorts when I saw the defendant kill the victim" or "I saw the defendant wearing shorts when he killed the victim"?). Now, we may debate (perhaps based on authority and philology) precisely what the witness said, but this does nothing to call into question the fact that he is the only witness to the crime! Similarly, disagreement about what is actually communicated in Scripture and the need for, say, some historical or etymological commentary do not count against sola Scriptura. To decisively object to this doctrine one would have to prove either (i) that there is another source of doctrinal material of equal or greater value (infallible, inspired, etc...), or (ii) that the Protestant-Catholic common ground (the Bible) objects to it. |
|
|
Grant |
|
April 07, 2008 at 9:18am |
|
Good comments there. For those who didn't understand the post, philology is the study of how language was used in history. For instance, using three definitions of the word gay: the barber had a girlfriend; he was not gay, but he felt happy and gay, but his jokes were gay, just plain silly.
As far as witnesses go, I can understand the Catholic faith. They believe the Bible when Jesus told his original disciples that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all truth. They interpret that to mean, the Church following, not just the disciples alone. In other words, not all truth is found in the Bible.
We Protestants believe that as well to some extent. We believe that the Church rightly formulated the Trinity doctrine after the Bible was written. We also believe certain other things that were post canonization, including our own Protestant Reformation.
However, what we don't believe is that the Catholic Church (plus or minus the Orthodox Church) are the sole arbiters of truth, or that everything they teach is truth. We have a dilemma. Many mistakes have been made throughout Christian history. What we DO trust is the original group of witnesses, and what they wrote. As such, we Protestants do not say, as Catholics do, that the Bible and tradition carry equal authority. What we actually say is sola scriptura, ONLY the Bible can be trusted as because it was written by direct witnesses.
Tradition it may be argued is also a direct witness, a direct witness of later inspiration, Christ leading his Church. However, tradition contains so many contradictions and errors, politics and power plays, distortions and coverups, that we cannot rely upon it so readily as we can the Bible. Only the Bible, sola scriptura, can be trusted as completely reliable. |
|
|
Rob |
|
April 11, 2008 at 2:36pm |
|
Grant,
Words and definitions are essential to "getting it right" but is getting it right what God wants?
I know people who believe that if you don't say the right words over someone while they're being baptized then they're not saved. These are the same people who think that if you don't have thorough knowledge of why you are being baptized then you're not baptized at all.
The people who don't believe baptism has anything to do with your salvation believe that if you haven't said "The Sinner's Prayer" just right, you're not saved. If you don't understand the 4-Spiritual Laws, you're going to hell.
"Getting it right" is a trap that has been the bane of Christianity from day one. I was reading up on the subject of "God's Permissive Will". I had heard the term before but I didn't know what it meant. After my research, I think I still don't know what it means...
"Permissive Will" is not a term used in the bible. "Free Will" is not a term that gets used alot either. "Trinity" is absent. But as you say, these may be valid extrapolations from the whole body of work.
Your initial rant suggests that only the words of Jesus can be 100% trusted but Jesus was a teacher of the Law. Nobody in Jesus' audience was born again. None of them had the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. He had to limit what He could tell His hearers. The epistles are an extension of the message Jesus could not preach. They answer the all-important question, "Okay, I'm saved, now what?"
Still, words and definitions are important. As you pointed out, words change their meaning with usage. Cultural pressures and downright ignorance have changed the word "grace" to mean "forgiveness". And so it is not unusual to hear a preacher say, "Don't depend on God's grace all the time". What he means is that we shouldn't live sinful lives in need of God's forgiveness, but what is communicated gives a false definition of the word grace.
5:2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. Grace is God's power or ability. It's more closely related to the Holy Spirit than it is to forgiveness - at least the way I read it.
Gene and I discovered a VERY interesting re-definition of the word "perfect". In the bible, the word perfect does not mean "self-sufficient" or "self-contained". These are 21st Century American definitions of the word "perfect". In the bible, the word "perfect" is also translated "complete" - as in: "Ye are complete in Him" (Col. 2:10 KJV). Yet every fiercely independent American is convinced that if I am perfect then I don't need God! The bible teaches otherwise. 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
Jesus made us perfect by His sacrifice. When we are born again we become united together with God in perfect union. Nowhere does the bible speak in terms of perfection being alienation from God (or even man, for that matter). God's definition of "perfect" is 180 degrees in the opposite direction from man's definition and, as we discovered, that corrupt definition worked it's way into our discussion.
I agree with you. We should maintain the sola scriptura ideal just like we should carry a compass with us when we go hiking.
Rob |
|
|
Gene |
|
April 12, 2008 at 11:06am |
|
huh? wah?
I thought I heard my name being mentioned.
Hi, Rob! I like the compass analogy. |
|
|
Rob |
|
April 12, 2008 at 12:09pm |
|
Wuzzup Gene!
I can't tell you what that little discussion did for me. What an eye-opener! What a blessing! Now when people ask me accusingly, "Do you think you're perfect?" I can confidently answer them, "Yes! I am in Christ and the bible says that makes me perfect!"
Thanks again, bro. |
|
|
| outstanding perspective on both the flaws and successes of the varying "camps" within Christianity... |
|
|
Grant |
|
April 13, 2008 at 5:02am |
|
 Rob, is understanding of words important? Hmmm! Yes. Example, many TV preachers misquote the verse about "where there is no vision the people perish" to support their idea of a large church or large ministry or some other big-thinking.
However, the meaning of the word vision in English has changed and so we could misunderstand vision (big thinking, big ideas) for vision (a divine revelation, from God). The latter is meant in that verse and not the former.
Who cares a rat's patootie about an egotistical televangelists big ideas if they are not God's. |
|
|
Rob |
|
April 13, 2008 at 9:32am |
|
Grant,
I am very much the wordsmith. I get it from my church of Christ background. I have a definite theology and it's up to me to see if this theology is supported by the scripture. I have to make adjustments to it every once in awhile but the basic framework is still the same.
As I sit here, I have Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, W.E. Vine's Expository Dictionary, and the King James Bible open in front of me. I just finished a rant about the doctrine of "Sinless Perfection". I posted it on the blog. Gene helped me write it (God love him).
Words mean something and it's very important that we get God's definition of those words or we wind up being confused and blaming God. Cults change the meanings of words to support their errant theologies. Awhile back, I sat in on a couple of sessions of some Messianic goof-ball who kept using the quote "where there is no vision the people perish" to support the whacked out "vision" he had had (he must have dropped acid or something).
My wife went to church this morning. She said the preacher spoke on the "abundant life". That's laughable. The church of Christ wouldn't know the abundant life if Jesus died on the cross to give it to them. Oh wait. He did. But their corrupt definition of "abundant" and "life" will continue to hold them in bondage to mediocrity and sorriness. Trust me, I was one of them.
Rob |
|
|
Grant |
|
April 13, 2008 at 10:12pm |
|
 Rob, I agree with you about the whole guru thing. I call them ignorant know-it-all's with back yard theology. I currently attend a Churches of Christ (Australia) congregation -- read Disciples of Christ (USA) -- for theological comparison. We have a theory in the whole restoration movement that is really rather unpracticed. It is the "no creed but Christ" theory. This is similar I suppose to the Red Letter Christians of today.
However, the whole (non-) "restoration movement" has introduced 19th century legalism as a culture -- no gambling, no alcohol, immersion baptism only, etc. Some in that movement even introduce the "no instruments" legalism. This has NOTHING to do with the Christianity of Christ, who turned water into (hello) wine, mentioned nothing at all about gambling, and nowhere in the entire NT is immersion mandated as the only form of baptism. Even the word "baptizo" is used in the NT to mean something other than immersion, washing the hands, which can be accomplished by pouring. And, banning instruments is banning something Christ did not. It's that simple to me.
So, I recognize that no church is perfect. I have studied Catholicism, Baptist theology, Lutheranism, Orthodox theology, Pentecostalism, Presbyterianism and a host of others as well. Each has something wonderful to add to the Body of Christ, and each has some serious error. In the end of the day, I believe we should all stick by the unpracticed theory of the restoration movement (and frankly most other churches too): the centrality of Christ and his teachings.
Blessings, Grant. |
|
|
Rob |
|
April 14, 2008 at 7:24am |
|
I blast the church of Christ because if anybody had an opportunity to really connect with Jesus when he first was born again, I surely did.
The temptation to blame that corrupt theology for the way my life turned out is extremely strong. My testimony could have and should have been encouraged, nurtured, and recognized for what it was but alas, instead of connecting to my new identity, I connected to a congregation of second-generation Christians.
Second-generation Christians are folks who made the logical decision to follow Jesus - somewhere around puberty. Mommy and daddy may or may not have had real conversion experiences but the child who is baptized at 10- or 11-years old (and many times younger) have no concept of "slavery to sin".
So here I am, saved from sex and drugs (dope, cigarettes, alcohol, etc.), bursting at the seems with joy over the fact that God "took away" my addictions, and nobody I was going to church with could relate - nobody my age, anyway. At 19-years old, I was an anomaly.
I did what seemed to be right - I conformed to the lifestyle of the second-generation Christian. They weren't talking about freedom from sin. In fact, by their own confession, they were still sinners. They knew the bible very well - I didn't. They didn't have a testimony so I suppressed mine. I was ashamed of my past and that manifested into secrecy and continued shame.
This is what's so blasted wrong with church, Grant. The only confession is a confession of sinfulness - not righteousness. There is no testimony of freedom from sin because it sounds like bragging. What an upside down bunch of religious crap! Converts don't stand a chance in church.
The church of Christ practices immersion in water for the remission of sins but they don't live the reality of that symbolism. Romans 6 (the whole chapter) explains in detail what is happening during that process but I have not met anyone in the church who actually believes that. Over and over again Paul tells those Christians - we were slaves to sin but now we are free to be slaves to righteousness. They will tell you that you have to be baptized to be saved but they haven't got the first clue what that ritual actually means. After everything that Paul says in Romans 6, when they come up out of the waters of baptism, their testimony is, "I'm a sinner". What a waste of time.
Never will you hear a prayer led where the Christian thanks God that by Jesus' sacrifice we became the righteousness of God. You never hear anyone give glory to God for taking sin away. If anyone leads a prayer giving God thanks for making it possible for us to live a life above sin - that if we walk by His Spirit we will not fulfill the lust of the flesh. They will hound you and hound you to abandon that theology until you finally have to kick the dust from your righteous feet to get away from such people.
That's how my re-entry into the church was greeted. God made certain that I understood that I did NOT have to be a sinner after He saved me again. He showed me very great and precious promises that I could live a life above sin - but I had to quit listening to the self-proclaimed sinners in the church of Chirst if I wanted to understand my new identity. I had to stop going to church and exposing myself to the second-generation theology of sinfulness.
Now, I spend my time "encouraging myself in the Lord". In addition to my own bible study and prayer, I listen to mostly Pentecostal preachers - preachers who actually believe God is good and wants good things for His people. Thank God for my wife, who introduced me to Jim Richards - out of Huntsville, Alabama, Kenneth Hagin - the father of faith, Joel Osteen - from Houston, Texas. These great men of God seem to understand what I went through to get where I am. They believe God for greatness. They want their listeners to live the abundant life. They promote the promises of God instead of trying to explain them away. I wish I had availed myself to such teaching 30+ years ago. Maybe, at 50+ years old, my life would have taken better course.
The scary thing to think, however, is maybe I would have rejected that good message and my life would still have been a mess. Who knows?
Thank God for Jesus!
Rob |
|
|
Grant |
|
April 14, 2008 at 8:20am |
|
 Oh, dear! I understand your experience, and have done similar things. I went to a Baptist church for a while, but got tired of the negative, legalistic preaching of the pastor. I then went to a Pentecostal church and loved the positive preaching for a season -- summer. But, in the end, I left there too because it was all just positive thinking hype, empty headed fluff, with no real substance, no guts and not much real depth or even knowledge of Scripture.
I am deeply saddened that you think that certain televangelists are good preachers. It grieves me greatly that so many people follow such individuals, who preach such shallow hype. But, you will have to figure that out for yourself. I have probably just insulted you and now you will no longer even listen to me. Sigh!
In the end of the day, I have come to the conclusion that ALL churches are deeply wrong -- about 80% wrong. Yet, on the other hand, ALL churches are 100% right, if as you say, they accept Christ -- he makes them 100% right with God, and none of their theologies, or other pizzazz, mumbo jumbo jazz or religious stuff can do that. Only Christ can!
Blessings my friend, and may you forgive me for speaking honestly from my heart on this matter. Grant. |
|
|
Rob |
|
April 14, 2008 at 8:41am |
|
I appreciate your blessings and your honesty. Read some of Osteen's writings. They are like a cool glass of water to people who have been oppressed by religion all their lives. The theology that God is good is a wonderful revelation.
I understand what you're saying about all the hype but if He is able to do exceeding abundantly more than anything I can ask or think then how shallow is that message? If I can do all things through Him that strengtheneth me, who can hype that? If "all things are yours" doesn't sound too good to be true then maybe there's a better message than the gospel.
One of the things Jim Richards says is that if you consider anything better than the kingdom of God, you're not worthy of it. If something sounds more appealing than the good news then it's not good enough. Anything we judge as better than God will ultimately destroy us.
Therefore, bring on the hype. Make me look at my Jesus through rose colored glasses. I want to receive all the abundance He has to offer. Give me the bible so that I can search for more of His great and precious promises.
The Hebrews writer put it this way:
4:1 Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left [us] of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. 4:2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard [it]. I'm afraid I might leave some of His promises on the table so I'm going to believe Him for the best and the most. If it ain't good news, it ain't the gospel.
Or so it seems to me,
Rob |
|
|
Grant |
|
April 14, 2008 at 5:08pm |
|
 Fair comment! However, I think that both you and I in reality prefer reading one sentence that Jesus said than a thousand books or TV shows by others. His wonderful teachings are the words of life. Blessings! |
|
|
Rob |
|
April 14, 2008 at 8:30pm |
|
| Amen, brother! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rant? Did you mean a Grant rant? LOL. Yes, I agree with your direction. The idea of Jesus having biblical priority is not a new one. The new evangelical movement called Red Letter Christians is also not a new idea. A very old exegetical idea is that Jesus interprets Moses and Jesus also has priority over Paul.
back to top
