First, we need to understand that when, say, Jesus referred to "the Scriptures" in the Gospels, He was referring to what we call the "Old Testament." The word, "Scriptures", is, in general, a reference to "the writings", but in practice it refers specifically to what we would call "the sacred writings" -- those things written down from God for His people. All Jesus had in His day was the Old Testament. But we also know that the New Testament writers understood that the New Testament was also Scripture. This is absolutely clear when, for instance, Peter refers to Paul's writings as part of the Scriptures (2 Peter 3:14-16). So, since our Bibles recognize both Old and New Testament as "the Scriptures" -- sacred writings -- then so should we.
As we all know, the clearest statement on the significance of the Scriptures is found in 2 Timothy.
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. (2 Tim 3:16-17)This statement gives us the two most important claims regarding Scripture. First, we have its origin. Second, we have its efficacy. "All Scripture," it begins, "is breathed out by God." Older versions have "inspired," but that's not the idea of this word. It isn't "breathed in." God ... exhaled it. The origin of Scripture is not a bunch of old men making stuff up. It is God. The authority of Scripture, then, is God. In older times when a king would write a decree, the decree had authority not because of the paper or the words, but because of the origin -- the king. The origin of Scripture is God, so Scripture has the authority of God. And how effective is this Scripture? The text says that it is "profitable" -- it actually serves the purpose of -- teaching, reproof, and training "so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." Clearly, this text says that the Scriptures are perfectly sufficient to accomplish what God in His speaking intended to accomplish -- sufficiency for His people to be what He wanted them to be.
The logic is irrefutable. The source of Scripture is God, giving it God's authority, and the purpose of Scripture is to give us all we need to be what we're supposed to be. Still, the skeptic will skepticize. "God's Word means more than Scripture." Scripture disagrees; it says it is sufficient for all. "God uses other means, too." Scripture disagrees. Oh, God does use other means, but all under the umbrella of Scripture, since Scripture is sufficient. "It's just your interpretation." Well, sort of. Peter, writing about "prophecy", said, "But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" (2 Peter 1:20-21). Now, don't get confused here. The job of every prophet was to be the mouthpiece of God. It didn't require "telling the future." "Prophecy" is the biblical term for speaking God's words -- "Thus saith the Lord." Scripture, then, is "prophecy" in that sense -- God's words. Thus, the stuff that God says in the Scriptures is not a matter of one's own interpretation. Those guys who wrote it down didn't interpret it themselves and spit out a mistaken opinion. It was not an act of human will. Men, moved by the Holy Spirit, spoke from God. And since we believe God to be the origin and God to be infallible and God to be the superintendent of the Scriptures, we would logically assume it is authoritative, accurate, and infallible. So, to the extent that we agree with what was intended, guided by the Holy Spirit, we, too, are speaking from God. That's not a matter of arrogance; that's the role of a good servant. Correcting the Master where He might be mistaken is not.
I hope those of you who are not prone to simply be contrary can now see why we say that the Scriptures are our sole authority on matters of faith and practice. It is based on Scripture, supported by Jesus (John 17:17), founded on God as our authority and Scripture as sufficient. Which leaves us as a final thought from Paul.
If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. (1 Tim 6:3-5)I didn't say that; Scripture did.
19 comments:
I don't understand why anyone would want to call themselves a Christian if they don't believe the Bible is the sole Word of God. If Truth can be found anywhere and everywhere, if Jesus wasn't God incarnate, didn't live a perfect life who's righteousness is imputed to us, who didn't die so that our unrighteousness could be imputed to Him, who can't be believed to have sent the Holy Spirit to train His people, what do you gain from being a Christian? If Jesus was not raised from the dead, we are without hope in Christ, and should be pitied for our foolishness. If the Bible isn't true and accurate in everything it says, Christianity is no more or less valid than any other religion.
Indeed, David, when people who consider themselves Christians but deny the reliability or veracity of Scripture but assure me, "I believe in Jesus," I wonder, "Why? On what do you base that, since what we know about Jesus comes from a book you don't believe is thoroughly reliable?" But there are self-identified "Christians" who deny the Bible and even deny Christ while affirming Him and can't figure out why we'd wonder. The Bible has a thing or two to say about them (1 John 2:18-19).
David,
I think that people who want to be known as Christians (or by a denominational label) without actually believing much of what makes Christianity unique do so for a couple of reasons.
1. It gives them the ability to put forth their own ideas about things and to make it sound like those ideas actually come with the imprimatur of YHWH.
2. It gives them some sort of credibility. It's one thing to posit a religion which denies much of Christian teaching, it's another to cast the same theology as just one more offshoot of Christianity.
I agree that it makes little sense, but after watching the progressives fight over the corpse of PCUSA in the wake of them completely dismantling and discarding everything that made Presbyterians theologically unique, I started to realize that wrapping heresy in the cloak of the PCUSA gave the heresy some degree of legitimacy among those who are ignorant. So they ended up with the shell of a once orthodox denomination, a bunch of overhead, and did while being vindictive and punitive towards those who only wanted to be left alone to serve YHWH.
Craig, isn't that the same basic idea behind "same-sex marriage"? Call it "marriage" (while tossing out all that goes into the definition of marriage) to give it a degree of legitimacy?
Stan,
Yes it is. There is value in the left being able to pour new meaning into terms that have substance or carry some weight. It's almost like they know exactly what they're doing. It's also kind of like the Mormons trying to insist that they are just one more Christian "denomination", they clearly have started an entire new religion, but by branding it as Christian they get some of the credibility that comes with a 2000 year old religion.
Or like the '60's culture subverting "having sex with" to "making love" so far that "love" and "sex" have become cemented in the cultural mind even though it makes no sense. The upshot is that when we talk about the loving God or loving your neighbor, it's all very confusing to Christians.
It appears to be a favorite scheme of the devil, doesn't it?
Why yes, yet it does.
As I skimmed a screed on this topic, I noticed something interesting. If scripture is NOT the sole authority on matters of faith and practice, then what is the sole authority? What is the alternative? Are they suggesting that there is NO authority? No standard? Some other standard? I'm all ears.
At least Joseph Smith offered an alternative/supplement to scripture.
In the end, I believe the only tenable answer they can offer (out loud or just in their heads) is "Me. I am the final authority."
Just to be clear -- because, apparently, I haven't been -- I believe that God is the ultimate authority ... in all matters. I believe that the Bible, as a message from God, carries God's authority and, as such, is the ultimate authority in the matters it addresses. I believe that Jesus agreed (John 17:17). As for those who protest, I am pretty sure that the protest is NOT about the authority of Scripture which they deny, but the authority of God ... whom they also deny by making themselves ("My common sense") the final authority.
Stan,
I think you've hit on something here. Like many things in the Christian world, when we talk about the authority of scripture, what we're actually saying is "the authority of YHWH which is communicated to us through scripture". Much like the laws of our country, the authority rests in the government, not in the laws themselves. I think that too many people use this shorthand as a way to sow ambiguity and confusion. By ignoring what is meant by the authority of scripture, and arguing against a straw man (that we really give authority to a physical object, or worship the Bible), they dodge the real claim.
It seems as though most of not all of the specific complaints about the authority of scripture are related to scripture's recording of YHWH's commands regarding certain behaviors that are held to be critical to certain people.
You are correct that this is an example of making themselves the final authority, not YHWH.
"Well, we must start with a reasonable, dispassionate commitment to our God-given reasoning. ANY source we might refer to is only going to be as good as our reasoning. And the Bible is clear that God's Word is "written upon our hearts..." there is that, within us, of an understanding of morality and God, according to the Bible."
Why look. An example of exactly what you just said.
Stan,
What's interesting is the lengths that people will go to in order to deny the authority of YHWH revealed through scripture. It seems pretty clear that acknowledging any sole authority is the problem, it wouldn't matter what that authority was. It's better for some to have a murky authority grounded in each individual and their own Reason, rather than in any external source.
We look at the arguments of the LGBT fanaticists when they ask "Who's to say what's real?" I want to say, "God, as He has revealed through His Word and creation." What other solid authority can there be? Personal feelings change, society changes, but God's Word and objective reality never changes.
David,
But it must focus around our Reason, not YHWH.
And yet, their reasoning is flawed. It holds no basis in objective reality, or even any basis in their great god Science.
David, and yet Dan frequently claims that his Reason is "reality".
Unfortunately, reason being the basis for truth (ignoring Scripture) fails when it ceases being rational, consistent, and avoiding logical fallacies.
Post a Comment