They assure me that God may have wrath, but it's not wrath for petty rules that have violated God. He's bigger than that. No, it's for Man's inhumanity to Man. The mind set on the flesh would call that reasonable. Jude says the Lord is coming "to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against Him" (Jude 1:15). So, who are you going to believe? The "reasonable" ones or Scripture?
They tell me that God did not punish Sodom and Gomorrah for sexual sin. It was for inhospitality. God said, "Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy" (Ezek 16:49). "See," they tell me, "it was for not helping the poor and needy and not for sexual immorality, let alone homosexual behavior." But Jude, using Sodom and Gomorrah as an example of God's judgment, says they, "indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire [and] serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire" (Jude 1:7). So they pit Scripture against Scripture and ignore one for the other. Who are you going to believe? The "quasi-biblical" ones, or Scripture?
Peter warned extensively about the false teachers (2 Peter 2) that Jesus promised (Matt 7:15-20) and John warned about (1 John 2:18-20) and Paul predicted (2 Tim 3:1-9). Paul followed his warning with a remedy. "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). Who are you going to believe?
Showing posts with label Authority of Scripture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Authority of Scripture. Show all posts
Monday, May 29, 2023
Thursday, February 02, 2023
Biblically Biblical
Dan complains that no one has answered his question about where we get this silly idea that the Bible is our authority on matters of faith and practice. I don't know why he complains so since I've answered it multiple times, but I'm willing to lay it out again once more, if only to give you readers who do get it the facts and thinking that drives us to the doctrine of sola scriptura.
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, June 16, 2022
Scripture - God's Word
It's a well-known passage.
The text talks about "inspiration," but it's not the inspiration we think of. It's more of an "expiration" -- a breathing out. Exhaling. In Greek, it's theopneustos, where "theo" is "God" and "pneustos" is "breathed." One word, one kind of "inspired." Scripture is "God-breathed." As opposed to "man-made." The writers weren't "inspired" to write this stuff; it was "breathed into" them. Scripture is God's Word.
"You're so narrow-minded on this," I've been told. "God's Word is so much bigger than Scripture." Well, sure, on one hand, that's true. No one claims that Scripture is all that God has to say. But that's not the claim. The claim is that all that is said in Scripture is God's Word.
"Scripture" -- I keep using that word. Do we know what it means? The Greek here is simply graphē -- a "writing." All Scripture is written. Every time this word appears in the New Testament it is a reference to the "sacred texts," the "holy Writ." Not merely anything that is written. So what we have written down in Scripture is breathed out by God and is, therefore, as reliable as God.
It's odd to me to hear people say, "I believe that" and then deny it. They deny it when they say that it cannot be inerrant -- without error. They deny it when they say it is not sufficient. "Sufficient?" you might ask. Oh, yes. Look a the claim. It is "profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness." "Teaching" gives us the knowledge of what is right. "Reproof" corrects us when we are wrong. "Correction" tells us how to get back to the right. And "training in righteousness" keeps us in what is right. So sufficient is this that it will make those who use it "complete, equipped for every good work." That which makes you complete and equips you for every good work is sufficient. When handled properly (2 Tim 2:15), it is absolutely sufficient for the task. Scripture doesn't require science or philosophy, higher morals or better ideas. It doesn't require your opinion. Taken as it is given, it is all that is needed. It is beyond accusation or evaluation, where we might be allowed to disallow some of it.
There is no other alternative here. You can believe what Scripture says about itself. It premises its claims to sufficiency on the sufficiency of God. It isn't the texts that are reliable; it is God, the One who breathed it. It isn't the words that are sufficient for godly thinking and living; it is God, the One who breathed them. It isn't the Bible that is inerrant; it is God who breathed it. If you claim that you believe the Bible and disregard what the Bible claims, you deceive yourself. Sadly, I'm pretty sure that every one of us at some point does just that, substituting personal preference for the simple truth of Scripture. To our own detriment.
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)You'd think it would have a bigger impact on Christians.
The text talks about "inspiration," but it's not the inspiration we think of. It's more of an "expiration" -- a breathing out. Exhaling. In Greek, it's theopneustos, where "theo" is "God" and "pneustos" is "breathed." One word, one kind of "inspired." Scripture is "God-breathed." As opposed to "man-made." The writers weren't "inspired" to write this stuff; it was "breathed into" them. Scripture is God's Word.
"You're so narrow-minded on this," I've been told. "God's Word is so much bigger than Scripture." Well, sure, on one hand, that's true. No one claims that Scripture is all that God has to say. But that's not the claim. The claim is that all that is said in Scripture is God's Word.
"Scripture" -- I keep using that word. Do we know what it means? The Greek here is simply graphē -- a "writing." All Scripture is written. Every time this word appears in the New Testament it is a reference to the "sacred texts," the "holy Writ." Not merely anything that is written. So what we have written down in Scripture is breathed out by God and is, therefore, as reliable as God.
It's odd to me to hear people say, "I believe that" and then deny it. They deny it when they say that it cannot be inerrant -- without error. They deny it when they say it is not sufficient. "Sufficient?" you might ask. Oh, yes. Look a the claim. It is "profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness." "Teaching" gives us the knowledge of what is right. "Reproof" corrects us when we are wrong. "Correction" tells us how to get back to the right. And "training in righteousness" keeps us in what is right. So sufficient is this that it will make those who use it "complete, equipped for every good work." That which makes you complete and equips you for every good work is sufficient. When handled properly (2 Tim 2:15), it is absolutely sufficient for the task. Scripture doesn't require science or philosophy, higher morals or better ideas. It doesn't require your opinion. Taken as it is given, it is all that is needed. It is beyond accusation or evaluation, where we might be allowed to disallow some of it.
There is no other alternative here. You can believe what Scripture says about itself. It premises its claims to sufficiency on the sufficiency of God. It isn't the texts that are reliable; it is God, the One who breathed it. It isn't the words that are sufficient for godly thinking and living; it is God, the One who breathed them. It isn't the Bible that is inerrant; it is God who breathed it. If you claim that you believe the Bible and disregard what the Bible claims, you deceive yourself. Sadly, I'm pretty sure that every one of us at some point does just that, substituting personal preference for the simple truth of Scripture. To our own detriment.
Wednesday, March 24, 2021
Deception
In Paul's second epistle to Timothy he describes "the last days" in terms of their "difficult times." (2 Tim 3:1-9) Describing what people will become, Paul offers an alternative to Timothy. Beginning with "Now you followed my teaching ..." (2 Tim 3:10), Paul tells him what to expect -- persecution (2 Tim 3:10-12) and how to avoid the lies (2 Tim 3:16-17). Because the real problem, Paul says, is that "evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived." (2 Tim 3:13) Deception is the problem -- deception being perpetrated and deception being self-administered. Like God's description of the human heart. It is deceitful and sick and we can't even grasp how bad it is (Jer 17:9).
God's description of the human heart concurs with Paul's warning about the last times where deceit, both given and received, reigns. Jesus calls Satan "a liar and the father of lies." (John 8:44) It is his nature, and he imparts that to sinful humans. Even we who are reborn suffer from the residuals.
So what are we to do? If we can't trust "the god of this world" (2 Cor 4:4) and we can't trust our own hearts, where is our remedy? The followers of the god of this world would argue that it's in better thinking. Clearly a case of pulling yourself up by your bootstraps. "You can't trust your thinking, so you need to think better." Of course, the argument isn't presented as contradictory and nonsensical as that. They simply deny that they can't trust their thinking ... which you would expect from someone who is self-deceived. John said, "If we say we do not err, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us." (1 John 1:8) So if not DIY repair (an obvious foolishness), what?
We have been given such a gift in the Scriptures. God breathed them (2 Tim 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20-21). God superintended them. God maintained them. God said what we needed to know. God illuminates them for us (1 Cor 2:11-12). We have standards in our world -- time standards and measurement standards and standards of practice for various things. If ever there was a truth standard against which we can measure our own thoughts and the ideas of others, this is it. Or we can assume that our deceived and deceitful hearts can be the best standard of truth, snuff out the candle, and curse the darkness.
God's description of the human heart concurs with Paul's warning about the last times where deceit, both given and received, reigns. Jesus calls Satan "a liar and the father of lies." (John 8:44) It is his nature, and he imparts that to sinful humans. Even we who are reborn suffer from the residuals.
So what are we to do? If we can't trust "the god of this world" (2 Cor 4:4) and we can't trust our own hearts, where is our remedy? The followers of the god of this world would argue that it's in better thinking. Clearly a case of pulling yourself up by your bootstraps. "You can't trust your thinking, so you need to think better." Of course, the argument isn't presented as contradictory and nonsensical as that. They simply deny that they can't trust their thinking ... which you would expect from someone who is self-deceived. John said, "If we say we do not err, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us." (1 John 1:8) So if not DIY repair (an obvious foolishness), what?
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)Out of hand, Natural Man will reject this (1 Cor 2:14). At first glance, it will be denied. "It's written by humans" (which is the remedy they are applying for themselves). "It's full of errors" (without regard to their own hearts full of errors). But even the God's people question it, not realizing what they are questioning. If the source of Scripture is the Divine Being (that we claim to embrace) and God is who He says He is (which we claim to embrace), then this book cannot be mistaken and this book is Truth with a capital "T". Ultimately, if Christ is the Truth (John 14:6), this book is our clearest way to Him. It is a standard against which we can measure our hearts, deceived as they are, and see where we are wrong. It is a sure thing, a reliable measurement, a means of modifying the deceived heart to more closely align with the Truth.
We have been given such a gift in the Scriptures. God breathed them (2 Tim 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20-21). God superintended them. God maintained them. God said what we needed to know. God illuminates them for us (1 Cor 2:11-12). We have standards in our world -- time standards and measurement standards and standards of practice for various things. If ever there was a truth standard against which we can measure our own thoughts and the ideas of others, this is it. Or we can assume that our deceived and deceitful hearts can be the best standard of truth, snuff out the candle, and curse the darkness.
Friday, January 10, 2020
A Lamp Unto My Feet
In His High Priestly Prayer, Jesus prayed, "Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth" (John 17:17). That sounds like Jesus is praying that we would be sanctified by the Word. Indeed, that principle is repeated elsewhere. Telling husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the church, Paul explains that He "gave Himself up for her, that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word" (Eph 5:25-26). And there it is again. Sanctified by "the washing of the water of the word." So apparently God's Word is important. Critical, in fact. Is it any wonder, then, that the Word is under attack?
"It's not reliable," they argue. "It's man-made," they contend. "It's just a book." The Bible disagrees. Being "breathed out by God" (2 Tim 3:16), it is "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). In God's word we discover what is true ("teaching"), what is in error ("reproof"), how to fix error ("correction"), and how to live godly ("training in righteousness"). So effective is this tool (versus "unreliable," "man-made," or "just a book") that it can complete God's people and equip them for every good work.
Still the critics seethe. Both without and within the church, they doubt the content and effectiveness of Scripture. It's unreliable, unknowable, and largely irrelevant. To which I say that the Bible, apparently, doesn't know that.
The 119th Psalm is the longest chapter of the Bible. It is a celebration of God's word. Structured around the Hebrew alphabet, it has 22 sections, each beginning with its corresponding Hebrew letter. The text employs the widest ranges of synonyms for God's word that you'll find anywhere ... repeatedly. Despite the skeptic's claim that "the Bible isn't a book of rules," the author of the psalm includes descriptions like "promise" (Psa 119:41), "word" (Psa 119:42), "rules" (Psa 119:43); "law" (Psa 119:44), "precepts" (Psa 119:45), "testimonies" (Psa 119:46), "commandments" (Psa 119:47), and "statutes" (Psa 119:48). (If you were paying attention, those all occurred successively under one Hebrew letter.) In this list you can find the bulk of the content of Scripture. There are, from God, promises, information, rules, laws, precepts, testimonies, commandments, and statutes -- all that is required to equip God's people for every good work.
The author of the psalm has more to say on the subject. Those who keep God's testimonies are blessed (Psa 119:2). God's word will keep a young man's way pure (Psa 119:9). He repeatedly speaks of his delight (not apathy or ambivalence or loathing) for God's word. Love for His word produces joy, comfort, protection, direction, hope, and delight among other things. There are almost unbelievable things in there, like, "If your law had not been my delight, I would have perished in my affliction" (Psa 119:92). Delighting in God's law kept him from perishing in trials. Not God's promises, God's support, or God's strength; God's law. One of the best known verses is this.
Jesus taught that we are sanctified -- set apart and made holy -- by God's word. The Bible says that the Scriptures are effective enough to complete and equip God's people for every good work. The psalmist delights in every aspect of God's word, from laws and commands to precepts and testimonies. God's word is protection, direction, even elation. I know that continuing loud voices outside and inside the church assure you that the Bible isn't all that -- not all that important, reliable, relevant, readable, or useful. It's a lie. And we know the father of lies.
"It's not reliable," they argue. "It's man-made," they contend. "It's just a book." The Bible disagrees. Being "breathed out by God" (2 Tim 3:16), it is "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). In God's word we discover what is true ("teaching"), what is in error ("reproof"), how to fix error ("correction"), and how to live godly ("training in righteousness"). So effective is this tool (versus "unreliable," "man-made," or "just a book") that it can complete God's people and equip them for every good work.
Still the critics seethe. Both without and within the church, they doubt the content and effectiveness of Scripture. It's unreliable, unknowable, and largely irrelevant. To which I say that the Bible, apparently, doesn't know that.
The 119th Psalm is the longest chapter of the Bible. It is a celebration of God's word. Structured around the Hebrew alphabet, it has 22 sections, each beginning with its corresponding Hebrew letter. The text employs the widest ranges of synonyms for God's word that you'll find anywhere ... repeatedly. Despite the skeptic's claim that "the Bible isn't a book of rules," the author of the psalm includes descriptions like "promise" (Psa 119:41), "word" (Psa 119:42), "rules" (Psa 119:43); "law" (Psa 119:44), "precepts" (Psa 119:45), "testimonies" (Psa 119:46), "commandments" (Psa 119:47), and "statutes" (Psa 119:48). (If you were paying attention, those all occurred successively under one Hebrew letter.) In this list you can find the bulk of the content of Scripture. There are, from God, promises, information, rules, laws, precepts, testimonies, commandments, and statutes -- all that is required to equip God's people for every good work.
The author of the psalm has more to say on the subject. Those who keep God's testimonies are blessed (Psa 119:2). God's word will keep a young man's way pure (Psa 119:9). He repeatedly speaks of his delight (not apathy or ambivalence or loathing) for God's word. Love for His word produces joy, comfort, protection, direction, hope, and delight among other things. There are almost unbelievable things in there, like, "If your law had not been my delight, I would have perished in my affliction" (Psa 119:92). Delighting in God's law kept him from perishing in trials. Not God's promises, God's support, or God's strength; God's law. One of the best known verses is this.
Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path. (Psa 119:105)The best direction in life comes from God's word.
Jesus taught that we are sanctified -- set apart and made holy -- by God's word. The Bible says that the Scriptures are effective enough to complete and equip God's people for every good work. The psalmist delights in every aspect of God's word, from laws and commands to precepts and testimonies. God's word is protection, direction, even elation. I know that continuing loud voices outside and inside the church assure you that the Bible isn't all that -- not all that important, reliable, relevant, readable, or useful. It's a lie. And we know the father of lies.
Monday, December 09, 2019
The Bible You Can't Trust
One of the fundamental pieces of the Christian religion is the Bible. Sure, on its face, the fundamental piece is a relationship with Jesus Christ. I mean, what else would "Christ-ian" mean? But if you take away the Bible, what do you know about Christ? Practically zero. Thus the Bible is key to Christianity. It is so key that for most of church history the Bible has been understood to be "God-breathed." That is, the Bible is the Word of God and, as such, should be taken with God's authority. Just a basic fact.
Of course, we're long beyond that now. We in the modern era have figured it out. The Bible is a nice book, as far as it goes, sure, but you can't take it too literally, of course. Jesus said He was "the door," but we don't understand that to mean that He had hinges and a door knob, right? So why would we understand, for instance, that when He said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man comes to the Father but by Me" (John 14:6) He actually meant some kind of narrow-minded exclusivity like so many conservative Christians do today? No, of course He didn't. We don't take literally that God commanded the Israelites to annihilate the Amalekites (1 Sam 15:2-3) or that God actually struck Uzza dead (2 Sam 6:7) or the like. We know better today. The Bible isn't "that kind of book." It's ... spiritual. You can't read it like any regular book. You certainly can't assume your understanding of it is either correct or, worse, authoritative. It's a good book, but, look, can't we all just get along?
Under the guise of humility and acceptance, then, we gut God's Word. While we "embrace" the Bible, we deny its truthfulness, sufficiency, applicability, and reliability. By naming as truth the claim, "You cannot know for sure that you can correctly understand what the Bible is saying," we undercut all of God's Word and, with it, all of Christianity. The ever popular "That book was written by men and is not completely reliable" or "What answers does a book written 2,000 years ago have for 21st century questions?" notions leave us without ... Christ. When we call it immoral to say, "The Bible is God's Word and God's Word says ...," we are declaring God unreliable, the Holy Spirit incompetent, and Jesus a liar. "There's the truly humble Christian viewpoint."
Here's what they're telling you. You cannot know for absolute certainty, so, therefore, you cannot know. This is, of course, nonsense because, as any philosopher will tell you, you cannot know with absolute certainty anything. Some uncertainty about something doesn't negate knowing. It's also nonsense because while you cannot know for absolute certainty, they apparently do. "Oh, you say that the Bible teaches that homosexual behavior is a sin? You cannot know that for certain. We, therefore, affirm with confidence that it is not." Something like that. They affirm with certainty that "The Bible doesn't mean what you think it means" while affirming that you cannot know. They will argue, "Well, if Christians throughout the ages have never been able to figure it out, you surely can't." This is utter nonsense. Christians throughout the ages have figured these questions out. It's not that they didn't; it's that they haven't gotten unanimous agreement ... from the world. Which is, of course, what you would expect. The existence of a dispute doesn't mean the answer isn't present; it simply means that not all sides accept it. So anti-Christian forces often bearing pro-Christian names are at war with the Bible, God's Word.
Jesus said, "You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free" (John 8:32). Modern "thinkers" say, "Well, no, you won't. We can't actually know the truth." And not knowing will certainly not set you free. Interestingly, Jesus specified the truth they would know that would set them free. "If you abide in My word, you are truly My disciples" (John 8:31). Well-meaning folks have opted to deny that God's Word can be known or trusted, thus denying Christ Himself ... all while calling themselves "Christians" -- so-called followers of Christ who have no problem standing against God's written word and campaigning to get others to toss out the reliable and authoritative word of the Omniscient God. Doesn't even make sense. So don't let that be you.
Of course, we're long beyond that now. We in the modern era have figured it out. The Bible is a nice book, as far as it goes, sure, but you can't take it too literally, of course. Jesus said He was "the door," but we don't understand that to mean that He had hinges and a door knob, right? So why would we understand, for instance, that when He said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man comes to the Father but by Me" (John 14:6) He actually meant some kind of narrow-minded exclusivity like so many conservative Christians do today? No, of course He didn't. We don't take literally that God commanded the Israelites to annihilate the Amalekites (1 Sam 15:2-3) or that God actually struck Uzza dead (2 Sam 6:7) or the like. We know better today. The Bible isn't "that kind of book." It's ... spiritual. You can't read it like any regular book. You certainly can't assume your understanding of it is either correct or, worse, authoritative. It's a good book, but, look, can't we all just get along?
Under the guise of humility and acceptance, then, we gut God's Word. While we "embrace" the Bible, we deny its truthfulness, sufficiency, applicability, and reliability. By naming as truth the claim, "You cannot know for sure that you can correctly understand what the Bible is saying," we undercut all of God's Word and, with it, all of Christianity. The ever popular "That book was written by men and is not completely reliable" or "What answers does a book written 2,000 years ago have for 21st century questions?" notions leave us without ... Christ. When we call it immoral to say, "The Bible is God's Word and God's Word says ...," we are declaring God unreliable, the Holy Spirit incompetent, and Jesus a liar. "There's the truly humble Christian viewpoint."
Here's what they're telling you. You cannot know for absolute certainty, so, therefore, you cannot know. This is, of course, nonsense because, as any philosopher will tell you, you cannot know with absolute certainty anything. Some uncertainty about something doesn't negate knowing. It's also nonsense because while you cannot know for absolute certainty, they apparently do. "Oh, you say that the Bible teaches that homosexual behavior is a sin? You cannot know that for certain. We, therefore, affirm with confidence that it is not." Something like that. They affirm with certainty that "The Bible doesn't mean what you think it means" while affirming that you cannot know. They will argue, "Well, if Christians throughout the ages have never been able to figure it out, you surely can't." This is utter nonsense. Christians throughout the ages have figured these questions out. It's not that they didn't; it's that they haven't gotten unanimous agreement ... from the world. Which is, of course, what you would expect. The existence of a dispute doesn't mean the answer isn't present; it simply means that not all sides accept it. So anti-Christian forces often bearing pro-Christian names are at war with the Bible, God's Word.
Jesus said, "You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free" (John 8:32). Modern "thinkers" say, "Well, no, you won't. We can't actually know the truth." And not knowing will certainly not set you free. Interestingly, Jesus specified the truth they would know that would set them free. "If you abide in My word, you are truly My disciples" (John 8:31). Well-meaning folks have opted to deny that God's Word can be known or trusted, thus denying Christ Himself ... all while calling themselves "Christians" -- so-called followers of Christ who have no problem standing against God's written word and campaigning to get others to toss out the reliable and authoritative word of the Omniscient God. Doesn't even make sense. So don't let that be you.
Wednesday, July 18, 2018
Why the Bible?
Jiminy Cricket said we should "Always let your conscience be your guide." Ah, the wisdom of Disney. Me? I tend to not trust my conscience as much as I do God's Word. I prefer to let the Scriptures be my guide. This, of course, makes me a sort of oddity. No one does that anymore. Well, of course, not no one, but certainly very few. Because, as we all know, the Bible just ain't what it used to be. Okay, that's not accurate either. But it's surely not what the Church has always contended -- the Authoritative, Infallible Word of God; the sole authority on matters of faith and practice. So I buck the trend to marginalize the Bible and prefer not to stand on my own understanding but on God's Word for my understanding of God and for the principles by which I live.
But, why? Why would I do that? Why would anyone do that? Why did Christians from the beginning of the Scriptures do that? Why would anyone think that the Bible was some sort of special book that is the authoritative, infallible Word of God? Let me give you some reasons.
1. God is Sovereign.
He is the Sovereign. As Creator and Master, He is a) absolutely perfect, truthful, good, omnipotent, omniscient, unchanging, etc., and b) the ultimate Authority.
2. God breathed.
The Bible claims that "All Scripture is God-breathed" (2 Tim 3:16). Older translations say "All Scripture is inspired by God." This isn't quite accurate. In today's vernacular one could reasonably say, "I know things about God and I'm inspired by God to write." Inspire means literally "to breathe in." In the original Greek, however, the word is the opposite term. It is to breathe out. It indicates a direct effort on God's part to those who were writing to breathe into them His Word. As such, Scripture is God's "breathed out" Word, His superintended, personal message to His creation.
3. The Bible is God's message to us.
Divinely exhaled, superintended, and protected, the Bible constitutes God's eternal words to His people. If I concur that God is the Master, the Lord, then I must concur that His words are authoritative, infallible truth.
The Bible has meaning. Not ambiguous, relative, or purely personal. When the words in our Scriptures were written they were written with a meaning they (the authors at God's behest) wished to convey. "We can't know for sure what they mean," some tell me. "The meaning changes over time," others argue. "The Bible is God's Word, but interpretation is personal," they assure me. All of this gets back to the original source. God didn't explain it well enough. God didn't provide us the Spirit He promised. God didn't know what it would become. God isn't wise enough to say what He means and mean what He says. We, as fallible human beings, will always differ over this minor point here or that small issue there, but if Jesus is to be believed, we have the Spirit that all believers have and on all the essential issues we all agree.
You can use your mere intellect and come up with you want. You can use your post-modern philosophy and argue there is no meaning but what we assign. You can use false humility and argue that interpretation is never sure ... and you're sure. All of it echoes Satan's words to Eve. "Did God really say ...?" And you would necessarily have to agree with him. I can't go that way. I don't trust the Bible; I trust the One who breathed it, Who supervised its creation, Who oversaw its existence over the millennia, Who gave the Spirit to explain it. You rely on the wisdom of the world and your jaded intellect; I'll go with God's Word.
But, why? Why would I do that? Why would anyone do that? Why did Christians from the beginning of the Scriptures do that? Why would anyone think that the Bible was some sort of special book that is the authoritative, infallible Word of God? Let me give you some reasons.
1. God is Sovereign.
He is the Sovereign. As Creator and Master, He is a) absolutely perfect, truthful, good, omnipotent, omniscient, unchanging, etc., and b) the ultimate Authority.
2. God breathed.
The Bible claims that "All Scripture is God-breathed" (2 Tim 3:16). Older translations say "All Scripture is inspired by God." This isn't quite accurate. In today's vernacular one could reasonably say, "I know things about God and I'm inspired by God to write." Inspire means literally "to breathe in." In the original Greek, however, the word is the opposite term. It is to breathe out. It indicates a direct effort on God's part to those who were writing to breathe into them His Word. As such, Scripture is God's "breathed out" Word, His superintended, personal message to His creation.
3. The Bible is God's message to us.
Divinely exhaled, superintended, and protected, the Bible constitutes God's eternal words to His people. If I concur that God is the Master, the Lord, then I must concur that His words are authoritative, infallible truth.
The Bible has meaning. Not ambiguous, relative, or purely personal. When the words in our Scriptures were written they were written with a meaning they (the authors at God's behest) wished to convey. "We can't know for sure what they mean," some tell me. "The meaning changes over time," others argue. "The Bible is God's Word, but interpretation is personal," they assure me. All of this gets back to the original source. God didn't explain it well enough. God didn't provide us the Spirit He promised. God didn't know what it would become. God isn't wise enough to say what He means and mean what He says. We, as fallible human beings, will always differ over this minor point here or that small issue there, but if Jesus is to be believed, we have the Spirit that all believers have and on all the essential issues we all agree.
You can use your mere intellect and come up with you want. You can use your post-modern philosophy and argue there is no meaning but what we assign. You can use false humility and argue that interpretation is never sure ... and you're sure. All of it echoes Satan's words to Eve. "Did God really say ...?" And you would necessarily have to agree with him. I can't go that way. I don't trust the Bible; I trust the One who breathed it, Who supervised its creation, Who oversaw its existence over the millennia, Who gave the Spirit to explain it. You rely on the wisdom of the world and your jaded intellect; I'll go with God's Word.
Wednesday, March 07, 2018
People of the Book
The phrase is actually an Islamic phrase. It refers to Jews and Christians (and a group of people known as Sabians). "The Book" in view, then, would be the Bible. For Jews, it would refer to our Old Testament and for Christians it would be the whole Book. Christians embraced the term in later days declaring, "Yes, indeed, we are people of the Book."
Of course, modern Christians are often in disagreement on this point. Modern Christians (self-professed) might consider themselves "religious, but without all that Bible nonsense." They would think it's a good book and all that, but let's not get carried away. I can write about "Christians" and "biblical Christians" and no one really questions the distinction because there are self-professed Christians who are "people of the Book" and self-professed Christians who are not. Settled in the early days of Christendom, one of the hottest (in terms of emotion as well as popularity) contentions these days is the reliability of the Christian Bible.
It's not just Christians who have this disagreement. Modern Jews are largely not "people of the Book." Indeed, many modern Jews are Jewish in heritage only. Their Bible disagrees with them as it does with modern Christians who are not biblical Christians.
I think everything else breaks down under those two complaints. "The Bible was written by men and shouldn't be the final word on all things Christian." That's still under the first category. "The Bible isn't a book of rules." Still that first category. "There are so many differences of interpretation for so many things in the Bible that we can't know for sure." Second category. You get the idea.
I also think that the complaints break down into one position: God is not reliable. You can see this under both categories. For the first category, He is not reliable to tell us what to do in His own Word, and in the second He is not reliable to keep His own Word through the ages. He is not reliable enough to insure that His own people know what His Word says. He is not Omniscient because He didn't plan for the future. He wasn't able to produce a comprehensive, authoritative, reliable manual for "the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints." (Jude 1:3) The flip side of that same coin is to lay it at our feet. We can't be trusted to properly interpret His Word. We can't really know what He intended. We are not reliable enough to say with certainty what was meant. Same thing, different approach.
It's all nonsense, you see. The distinction between "Christian" and "biblical Christian" looks a lot like "not Christian" and "Christian" when considered through the lens of "Is God reliable?" The non-biblical Christian would have to argue, "No, He's not ... but I'm a believer." Not a reasonable position. The best "anti-biblical Christian" arguments end up with only a couple of possibilities. Either God is not God -- not correct or good or right or reliable -- or the Holy Spirit has failed to accomplish what Jesus said He would (John 14:26). It's fairly simple. The Christian who confirms that the Bible is not reliable, inerrant, authoritative -- God's Word -- denies at the core the character and capability of God the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. If Christians are not actually people of the Book, they are not likely Christians1.
________
Of course, modern Christians are often in disagreement on this point. Modern Christians (self-professed) might consider themselves "religious, but without all that Bible nonsense." They would think it's a good book and all that, but let's not get carried away. I can write about "Christians" and "biblical Christians" and no one really questions the distinction because there are self-professed Christians who are "people of the Book" and self-professed Christians who are not. Settled in the early days of Christendom, one of the hottest (in terms of emotion as well as popularity) contentions these days is the reliability of the Christian Bible.
It's not just Christians who have this disagreement. Modern Jews are largely not "people of the Book." Indeed, many modern Jews are Jewish in heritage only. Their Bible disagrees with them as it does with modern Christians who are not biblical Christians.
The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever. (Isa 40:8)The disagreement among self-professing Christians centers around just a couple of issues, I think. The first is common to most -- Jew and Christian. "I'm the decider of what is true and right." Like a kid who tells an adult, "You're not the boss of me!", we aren't really happy about some book written thousands of years ago telling us what is and is not true, what is and is not right. It's common to hear complaints like, "What did they know about modern issues like gender or loving relationships between two people of the same sex?" It carries over to other issues, too, of course, but you understand. Life was different then. Why would we expect the Bible to have any reasonable or useful input now? The second very common problem is that of translation and interpretation. On one hand this is a valid concern. We have certainly seen (continue to see) our share of bad translations and even interpretations. (The New World Translation springs to mind for bad translation and anything interpreted à la Joel Olsteen is a suspect interpretation -- two quick examples.)
I think everything else breaks down under those two complaints. "The Bible was written by men and shouldn't be the final word on all things Christian." That's still under the first category. "The Bible isn't a book of rules." Still that first category. "There are so many differences of interpretation for so many things in the Bible that we can't know for sure." Second category. You get the idea.
I also think that the complaints break down into one position: God is not reliable. You can see this under both categories. For the first category, He is not reliable to tell us what to do in His own Word, and in the second He is not reliable to keep His own Word through the ages. He is not reliable enough to insure that His own people know what His Word says. He is not Omniscient because He didn't plan for the future. He wasn't able to produce a comprehensive, authoritative, reliable manual for "the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints." (Jude 1:3) The flip side of that same coin is to lay it at our feet. We can't be trusted to properly interpret His Word. We can't really know what He intended. We are not reliable enough to say with certainty what was meant. Same thing, different approach.
It's all nonsense, you see. The distinction between "Christian" and "biblical Christian" looks a lot like "not Christian" and "Christian" when considered through the lens of "Is God reliable?" The non-biblical Christian would have to argue, "No, He's not ... but I'm a believer." Not a reasonable position. The best "anti-biblical Christian" arguments end up with only a couple of possibilities. Either God is not God -- not correct or good or right or reliable -- or the Holy Spirit has failed to accomplish what Jesus said He would (John 14:26). It's fairly simple. The Christian who confirms that the Bible is not reliable, inerrant, authoritative -- God's Word -- denies at the core the character and capability of God the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. If Christians are not actually people of the Book, they are not likely Christians1.
________
1 Just for clarity, I say "not likely" because in today's essentially anti-biblical world with anti-biblical voices in the church, it is entirely possible that a genuine Christian could be confused and deceived. That's the kind of person I'm hoping will read this and see a different path, that God is reliable, making His word trustworthy and authoritative.
Friday, April 22, 2016
Sola Scriptura
The cry of the Reformation was "Sola Scriptura!" Okay, maybe not, but it was certainly the undergirding concept. Among all the other "solas", the other "only" references (sola scriptura, sola fide, sola gratia, solus Christus, and soli Deo gloria) were based on this one. That is, the claims that we are saved by faith apart from works, saved by grace apart from works, saved by Christ alone, and that God alone deserves glory are all predicated on the notion that Scripture alone is the authority on matters of faith and practice. It was held over against the world's "reason" or "perceptions" and even the Roman Catholic three-part structure of Scripture, Church, and Traditions. Scripture alone was the authority in matters of faith and practice.
Of course, everyone knows that this was a "new thing", an invention of the Reformers. It's not biblical and it's not historical. And, as I often suggest, new things are suspect. But, is it true? Is it true that it was a new thing, that it was not historical? As it turns out, it ain't necessarily so. As it turns out, sola scriptura is historical.
When the Church stood against Arius and the Arian Heresy (the claim that Jesus was not God), the Council of Nicaea stood on the basis of Scripture. Gregory of Nyssa wrote,
In fact, a host of early Church fathers wrote of the authority of Scripture over against which everything must be weighed. Writings from Irenaeus of Lyons (died 202 A.D.), Tertullian (died 235 A.D.), Hippolytus (died 235 A.D.), Dionysius of Alexandria (circa 265 A.D.), Athanasius of Alexandria (died 373 A.D.) -- the list goes on and on -- all contain the same claims long before the Reformation. As Augustine put it,
And, as it turns out, "It's not biblical" is equally false. Paul warned the Corinthians to "not go beyond what is written" (1 Cor 4:6). You see, it is in our nature to think of our logic and reason as the ultimate authority, but Paul was concerned that "your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God." (1 Cor 2:5) The psalmist wrote, "The sum of Your word is truth, and every one of Your righteous rules endures forever." (Psa 119:160) The Bible claims, "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) Get that? Under God's authority, being sourced by God, "all Scripture" is profitable "that the man of God may be complete." What higher authority than God? What other authority is needed? Not human philosophy or human traditions or even the elemental spirits of the world (Col 2:8), but God is our sole authority and His Word is His revealed will. Does the Bible say, "Scripture is the sole authority in matters of faith and practice"? No, of course not. You won't find that text. Nor does it mention the word "Trinity" even once. But based on what the Bible says about the Bible (which, by definition, makes it "biblical"), it is the only reasonable conclusion. It is the conclusion that the early Church fathers came to. It has been the historical conclusion of the Church. It is my conclusion. As always, you're free to conclude otherwise. I just wonder about the wisdom of doing so.
Of course, everyone knows that this was a "new thing", an invention of the Reformers. It's not biblical and it's not historical. And, as I often suggest, new things are suspect. But, is it true? Is it true that it was a new thing, that it was not historical? As it turns out, it ain't necessarily so. As it turns out, sola scriptura is historical.
When the Church stood against Arius and the Arian Heresy (the claim that Jesus was not God), the Council of Nicaea stood on the basis of Scripture. Gregory of Nyssa wrote,
What then is our reply? We do not think that it is right to make their prevailing custom the law and rule of sound doctrine. For if custom is to avail for proof of soundness, we too, surely, may advance our prevailing custom; and if they reject this, we are surely not bound to follow theirs. Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words. (Dogmatic Treatises, Book 12. On the Trinity, To Eustathius.)Arius was wrong not because he disagreed with the Council, but because he disagreed with Scripture.
In fact, a host of early Church fathers wrote of the authority of Scripture over against which everything must be weighed. Writings from Irenaeus of Lyons (died 202 A.D.), Tertullian (died 235 A.D.), Hippolytus (died 235 A.D.), Dionysius of Alexandria (circa 265 A.D.), Athanasius of Alexandria (died 373 A.D.) -- the list goes on and on -- all contain the same claims long before the Reformation. As Augustine put it,
Whereas, therefore, in every question, which relates to life and conduct, not only teaching, but exhortation also is necessary; in order that by teaching we may know what is to be done, and by exhortation may be incited not to think it irksome to do what we already know is to be done; what more can I teach you, than what we read in the Apostle? For holy Scripture establishes a rule to our teaching, that we dare not “be wiser than we ought;” but be wise, as he himself says, “unto soberness, according as unto each God hath allotted the measure of faith.” Be it not therefore for me to teach you any other thing, save to expound to you the words of the Teacher, and to treat of them as the Lord shall have given to me. (The Good of Widowhood, 2)As it turns out, the doctrine that Scripture is the sole authority in matters of faith and practice was around from the beginning, based on the authority of God, the source of Scripture.
And, as it turns out, "It's not biblical" is equally false. Paul warned the Corinthians to "not go beyond what is written" (1 Cor 4:6). You see, it is in our nature to think of our logic and reason as the ultimate authority, but Paul was concerned that "your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God." (1 Cor 2:5) The psalmist wrote, "The sum of Your word is truth, and every one of Your righteous rules endures forever." (Psa 119:160) The Bible claims, "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) Get that? Under God's authority, being sourced by God, "all Scripture" is profitable "that the man of God may be complete." What higher authority than God? What other authority is needed? Not human philosophy or human traditions or even the elemental spirits of the world (Col 2:8), but God is our sole authority and His Word is His revealed will. Does the Bible say, "Scripture is the sole authority in matters of faith and practice"? No, of course not. You won't find that text. Nor does it mention the word "Trinity" even once. But based on what the Bible says about the Bible (which, by definition, makes it "biblical"), it is the only reasonable conclusion. It is the conclusion that the early Church fathers came to. It has been the historical conclusion of the Church. It is my conclusion. As always, you're free to conclude otherwise. I just wonder about the wisdom of doing so.
Monday, October 19, 2015
Questioning Authority
I've done several posts of late around the topic of the Bible as the final authority in matters of faith and practice for the Christian faith. It's probably a good idea to question that authority. No, not whether it is so, but just what it means. Perhaps by fleshing out the concept, it won't be as offensive to many as it seems to be. (Of course, anyone who denies the authority of Scripture will still be offended. Not much I can do about that.)
Perhaps it might be helpful to start with what it does not mean. There seems to be much confusion here. It does not mean that only the Bible contains truth or that all that is true is contained in the Bible. Scriptures tell us, for instance, that "The heavens declare the glory of God." (Psa 19:1) Paul says, "That which is known about God is evident within them (Man); for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." (Rom 1:19-20) "Sole source of all truth" is not the point. Nor does it mean that there is no other authority. That would simply be a contradiction ... of the Bible. The church has authority (Matt 18:15-18). Church leadership has authority (Heb 13:17). Human government has authority (Rom 13:1-5). Husbands have authority (Eph 5:22-24; 1 Peter 3:1-2). Parents have authority (Eph 6:1; Col 3:20). Even masters have authority (Eph 6:5-7; Col 3:22-25). Indeed, there is a biblical hierarchy of authority (1 Cor 11:3). Sola scriptura does not mean "no other authority".
Many people complain because "Well, it sure wasn't the sole authority in Moses's day. I mean, when Paul wrote, 'All Scripture is God-breathed', he surely wasn't talking about what he was writing. That wasn't Scripture yet. They only had the Old Testament and that wasn't the sole authority." So I need to point out that it also doesn't mean "Always has been". The actual ultimate authority is God. If you deny that, you're simply proving the original problem of sin. God has always been the authority and will always continue to be. So when God verbally spoke to Israel, they didn't need a transcript, a council meeting, and a declaration of "This is Scripture" to consider it authoritative. It was authoritative because God said it. For Christianity, up to the end of the writing of the canon of Scripture, the primary authority structure was God -> Christ -> the Apostles and Prophets, where "the Apostles" were actually on hand and "the Prophets" were available by existing Scripture. At the end of the Apostles, we were left with the same structure -- God -> Christ -> the Apostles and Prophets -- with the exception that we no longer had the Apostles present. They were found in Scripture. So that is the current authority hierarchy: God -> Christ -> the Apostles and Prophets (as found in the Scriptures). After that, there are other sources of truth and other designated authority structures.
This concept of the authoritative nature of the Word is not foreign to the Word. Indeed, it is all through the Bible. "What was written" was the authority from the earliest writings. Moses wrote down the law (Deut 31:9) "so that they may hear and learn and fear the LORD your God, and be careful to observe all the words of this law." (Deut 31:12) God told Joshua, "This book of the law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it; for then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have success." (Josh 1:8) Israel was constantly called to "do all that is written in the book" (Josh 23:6), to "Celebrate the Passover to the LORD your God as it is written in this book of the covenant" (2 Kings 23:21), to return to "what is written" (2 Chron 35:12; Ezra 3:2; Neh 10:34, etc., etc., etc.). Do a search sometime and see how many times Jesus referenced "it is written", including the repeated use of the phrase in His trial with Satan in the desert. The Gospel writers often referred, as proof of the truth, to what was written (e.g., Matt 2:15, 18; Mark 1:2; Luke 2:23; John 12:14-15). My Bible is quite helpful in this regard because every quote from the Old Testament used as proof or reference in the New Testament is capitalized ... and there are a lot. It just keeps going. Timothy was told to persevere through persecutions and impostors by remembering "the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." (2 Tim 3:12-15) It's all through Scripture. What is? Scripture is all through Scripture, relying on Scripture to support Scripture and God's Word to back up God's Word.
What is the ultimate authority? Well, of course, it is God. Not you. Not me. Not your feelings or even my reasoning capacities. It is God. And in Israel's days of theocracy or the Apostle's days of direct connection with God, it was not only Scripture. It was God. What we have today, however, is God as He speaks in His Word. If God is the final authority and He has expressed Himself in His Word, then you have the actual reason for the position of sola scriptura. God, speaking to us through His Word, is the ultimate authority. Do we not use our brains? Well, of course we do. But the aim, the point, the real purpose here is "What does God say?" followed by "Yes, Lord." And this isn't a simple reasoning project. If Jesus was correct, we have the Holy Spirit to lead us into that truth. Thus, there is tradition and the church and history and the Communion of the Saints, a consensus of sorts from the beginning that affirms all the essentials with all who hear His Word whispered by the Spirit. So? So when you hear, "You know what? The Church for 2,000 years has been entirely and completely wrong on this point and you have figured out by your fine reasoning skills and simple logic what is really true," you can be fairly sure it's not the Spirit speaking to you through the Word of God. And if you hear, "Your reasoning is the final authority over Scripture", you can be rightly suspicious that it sounds very much like the voice that asked Eve, "Did God say ...?"
Perhaps it might be helpful to start with what it does not mean. There seems to be much confusion here. It does not mean that only the Bible contains truth or that all that is true is contained in the Bible. Scriptures tell us, for instance, that "The heavens declare the glory of God." (Psa 19:1) Paul says, "That which is known about God is evident within them (Man); for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." (Rom 1:19-20) "Sole source of all truth" is not the point. Nor does it mean that there is no other authority. That would simply be a contradiction ... of the Bible. The church has authority (Matt 18:15-18). Church leadership has authority (Heb 13:17). Human government has authority (Rom 13:1-5). Husbands have authority (Eph 5:22-24; 1 Peter 3:1-2). Parents have authority (Eph 6:1; Col 3:20). Even masters have authority (Eph 6:5-7; Col 3:22-25). Indeed, there is a biblical hierarchy of authority (1 Cor 11:3). Sola scriptura does not mean "no other authority".
Many people complain because "Well, it sure wasn't the sole authority in Moses's day. I mean, when Paul wrote, 'All Scripture is God-breathed', he surely wasn't talking about what he was writing. That wasn't Scripture yet. They only had the Old Testament and that wasn't the sole authority." So I need to point out that it also doesn't mean "Always has been". The actual ultimate authority is God. If you deny that, you're simply proving the original problem of sin. God has always been the authority and will always continue to be. So when God verbally spoke to Israel, they didn't need a transcript, a council meeting, and a declaration of "This is Scripture" to consider it authoritative. It was authoritative because God said it. For Christianity, up to the end of the writing of the canon of Scripture, the primary authority structure was God -> Christ -> the Apostles and Prophets, where "the Apostles" were actually on hand and "the Prophets" were available by existing Scripture. At the end of the Apostles, we were left with the same structure -- God -> Christ -> the Apostles and Prophets -- with the exception that we no longer had the Apostles present. They were found in Scripture. So that is the current authority hierarchy: God -> Christ -> the Apostles and Prophets (as found in the Scriptures). After that, there are other sources of truth and other designated authority structures.
This concept of the authoritative nature of the Word is not foreign to the Word. Indeed, it is all through the Bible. "What was written" was the authority from the earliest writings. Moses wrote down the law (Deut 31:9) "so that they may hear and learn and fear the LORD your God, and be careful to observe all the words of this law." (Deut 31:12) God told Joshua, "This book of the law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it; for then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have success." (Josh 1:8) Israel was constantly called to "do all that is written in the book" (Josh 23:6), to "Celebrate the Passover to the LORD your God as it is written in this book of the covenant" (2 Kings 23:21), to return to "what is written" (2 Chron 35:12; Ezra 3:2; Neh 10:34, etc., etc., etc.). Do a search sometime and see how many times Jesus referenced "it is written", including the repeated use of the phrase in His trial with Satan in the desert. The Gospel writers often referred, as proof of the truth, to what was written (e.g., Matt 2:15, 18; Mark 1:2; Luke 2:23; John 12:14-15). My Bible is quite helpful in this regard because every quote from the Old Testament used as proof or reference in the New Testament is capitalized ... and there are a lot. It just keeps going. Timothy was told to persevere through persecutions and impostors by remembering "the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." (2 Tim 3:12-15) It's all through Scripture. What is? Scripture is all through Scripture, relying on Scripture to support Scripture and God's Word to back up God's Word.
What is the ultimate authority? Well, of course, it is God. Not you. Not me. Not your feelings or even my reasoning capacities. It is God. And in Israel's days of theocracy or the Apostle's days of direct connection with God, it was not only Scripture. It was God. What we have today, however, is God as He speaks in His Word. If God is the final authority and He has expressed Himself in His Word, then you have the actual reason for the position of sola scriptura. God, speaking to us through His Word, is the ultimate authority. Do we not use our brains? Well, of course we do. But the aim, the point, the real purpose here is "What does God say?" followed by "Yes, Lord." And this isn't a simple reasoning project. If Jesus was correct, we have the Holy Spirit to lead us into that truth. Thus, there is tradition and the church and history and the Communion of the Saints, a consensus of sorts from the beginning that affirms all the essentials with all who hear His Word whispered by the Spirit. So? So when you hear, "You know what? The Church for 2,000 years has been entirely and completely wrong on this point and you have figured out by your fine reasoning skills and simple logic what is really true," you can be fairly sure it's not the Spirit speaking to you through the Word of God. And if you hear, "Your reasoning is the final authority over Scripture", you can be rightly suspicious that it sounds very much like the voice that asked Eve, "Did God say ...?"
Friday, October 16, 2015
The Christian Foundation
"You know," they tell me, "the Bible disagrees with you about the Bible being the authority."
"Oh, really?"
"Yes! Look at 1 Timothy 3."
But wait! Are we claiming that the Bible teaches that the church of the living God is the final authority in matters of faith and practice? Well, of course, the Roman Catholics are (or something like it), but what about the rest of us? (Truth is, none of those who argue against sola scriptura will argue that the Church is the sole authority in matters of faith and practice ... even though that Scripture seems to say so.) I mean, if we're going to see the Bible as authoritative (even if not the final authority), don't we have to agree with the Catholics? Well, no, not if we're biblical.
Why? Well, consider Paul's words to the church at Ephesus.
Oh, didn't see that coming.
"Oh, really?"
"Yes! Look at 1 Timothy 3."
If I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth." (1 Tim 3:15)Game, set, match. The Bible disagrees that the Bible is the primary authority in the Christian faith and practice. We can all go home now.
But wait! Are we claiming that the Bible teaches that the church of the living God is the final authority in matters of faith and practice? Well, of course, the Roman Catholics are (or something like it), but what about the rest of us? (Truth is, none of those who argue against sola scriptura will argue that the Church is the sole authority in matters of faith and practice ... even though that Scripture seems to say so.) I mean, if we're going to see the Bible as authoritative (even if not the final authority), don't we have to agree with the Catholics? Well, no, not if we're biblical.
Why? Well, consider Paul's words to the church at Ephesus.
So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone." (Eph 2:19-20)There's that "household of God" thing again. So, starting with agreement that "the household of God which is the church of the living God" is in view as "the pillar and buttress of the truth", to what is Paul referring? Paul says that the foundation of the church is "the apostles and prophets" with "Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone." So the "household of God" that Paul references in his letter to Timothy is "the church" and the church is not founded in thin air. It is set true by the cornerstone, Christ, and founded on the apostles and prophets ... which we have in Scripture. So the foundation of the church which has authority is Christ and the Scriptures. Thus, the ultimate authority -- the bedrock of Christianity -- is Christ and the Scriptures.
Oh, didn't see that coming.
Tuesday, October 13, 2015
Sola Scriptura is Not Biblical
The first argument against the primary authority of Scripture is this very interesting argument. It is often misused, like, "The Trinity is not a valid doctrine because you won't find the word in the Bible." But in this case, the argument that "The Bible is the sole authority in matters of faith and doctrine" would actually seem to need to be found in Scripture in order to be valid. Else the naked claim is the first authority. So, is it true that the claim is not found in Scripture?
If you're looking for "This Word of God is the sole authority in matters of faith and practice", you can find it in the Old Testament in Hezekiah 7:13 and in the New Testament in 3 Peter 2:6. If you're paying attention, I just made a joke. The phrase doesn't exist. (If you didn't get the joke, perhaps arguing about the Bible as sole authority should come some time later ... after you've looked more closely at the Bible.) But because the sentence isn't there doesn't mean that the argument isn't there.
Note, for instance, Paul's words in his first letter to the church at Corinth. "Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sake, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other." (1 Cor 4:6) "Learn not to exceed what is written." That is precisely what the claim is. But, perhaps you will argue, "He's only talking about a specific letter" or something like it. Okay. How about this claim?
If you want more, look at the approach of Scripture. How many times did Jesus refer people in His teachings to Scripture? How many times did He say, "It is written" or "Have you not read" or other references to Scripture as authority? How many times did other writers refer to the Scriptures as proof of their claim? Indeed, when the heretical Marcion who argued that the Old Testament was no longer valid assembled his own Bible, he ended up with stripped versions of the Gospel of Luke and Paul's writings because everything was predicated on the Scriptures.
Conversely, following tradition over Scripture is not a new problem. Jesus warned against it. He told the Pharisees, "You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition." (Mark 7:9) He pointed back to Isaiah when He said, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, 'This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me; in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'" (Mark 7:6-7) Modern groups are doing it today -- Tradition over Scripture. On the other hand, the Bible commends the Bereans who "were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica" because they "received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so." (Acts 17:11) Was Paul's teachings as an Apostle of the Church authoritative? Yes, but only so far as they aligned with Scripture.
"So," you may ask, "you're saying that Tradition and the Church have no authority?" No, that's not what I'm saying because that's not what I believe. I understand sola scriptura to say that the ultimate authority, the final authority for all matters of faith and practice is found in Scripture. That does not mean that there is no other authority. For instance, Paul wrote to the church at Thessalonica telling them, "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us." (2 Thess 3:6) Thus, "the tradition which you received from us" was considered normative, not extraneous. But it couldn't contradict Scripture. In a similar way, we are told, "Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you." (Heb 13:17) As such, both tradition (lowercase "t") and the church have authority. I don't wish to argue that they don't. I'm just saying that their authority is subject to Scripture. And I'm just saying that I get that ... from Scripture.
________
If you're looking for "This Word of God is the sole authority in matters of faith and practice", you can find it in the Old Testament in Hezekiah 7:13 and in the New Testament in 3 Peter 2:6. If you're paying attention, I just made a joke. The phrase doesn't exist. (If you didn't get the joke, perhaps arguing about the Bible as sole authority should come some time later ... after you've looked more closely at the Bible.) But because the sentence isn't there doesn't mean that the argument isn't there.
Note, for instance, Paul's words in his first letter to the church at Corinth. "Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sake, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other." (1 Cor 4:6) "Learn not to exceed what is written." That is precisely what the claim is. But, perhaps you will argue, "He's only talking about a specific letter" or something like it. Okay. How about this claim?
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 competent, equipped for every good work. (2 Tim 3:16-17)1"That makes no such claim to authority or sole authority." Doesn't it? It says that all Scripture is breathed out by God. Nothing else -- not the Church nor Tradition nor your hunches, your "common sense", your experiences, nor your societal norms -- are classified as "God-breathed". It says that Scripture will make the man of God "equipped". The King James says "thoroughly furnished". The word is ἐξαρτίζω -- exartizō. It means to furnish fully, to equip, to finish. This passage claims that all Scripture will equip the man of God for ... what? "Every good work." Not some. Not most. Every. The Bible makes the claim that the Bible alone will equip/furnish/finish the man of God for good works.
If you want more, look at the approach of Scripture. How many times did Jesus refer people in His teachings to Scripture? How many times did He say, "It is written" or "Have you not read" or other references to Scripture as authority? How many times did other writers refer to the Scriptures as proof of their claim? Indeed, when the heretical Marcion who argued that the Old Testament was no longer valid assembled his own Bible, he ended up with stripped versions of the Gospel of Luke and Paul's writings because everything was predicated on the Scriptures.
Conversely, following tradition over Scripture is not a new problem. Jesus warned against it. He told the Pharisees, "You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition." (Mark 7:9) He pointed back to Isaiah when He said, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, 'This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me; in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'" (Mark 7:6-7) Modern groups are doing it today -- Tradition over Scripture. On the other hand, the Bible commends the Bereans who "were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica" because they "received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so." (Acts 17:11) Was Paul's teachings as an Apostle of the Church authoritative? Yes, but only so far as they aligned with Scripture.
"So," you may ask, "you're saying that Tradition and the Church have no authority?" No, that's not what I'm saying because that's not what I believe. I understand sola scriptura to say that the ultimate authority, the final authority for all matters of faith and practice is found in Scripture. That does not mean that there is no other authority. For instance, Paul wrote to the church at Thessalonica telling them, "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us." (2 Thess 3:6) Thus, "the tradition which you received from us" was considered normative, not extraneous. But it couldn't contradict Scripture. In a similar way, we are told, "Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you." (Heb 13:17) As such, both tradition (lowercase "t") and the church have authority. I don't wish to argue that they don't. I'm just saying that their authority is subject to Scripture. And I'm just saying that I get that ... from Scripture.
________
1 Note: That's the ESV. It makes the point clear that we're not talking about "inspired writing", but "God-breathed". If you can point to anything else that is reliably classified as "God-breathed", you might have a contender for authority.
Monday, October 12, 2015
Sola Scriptura No!
The standard position of many Christians is sola scriptura, even if they don't know it. The phrase means "only Scripture" and is the position that Scripture is the sole authority in matters of faith and practice. To put it another way, the Bible contains all that is required for salvation and godly living. Well, mostly another way to put it, because there is another element in the idea -- exclusion.
You see, the Roman Catholics have a different idea. They have a three-pronged structure, where Scripture, the Church, and Tradition are the three authorities. Not one. Thus, one of the reasons that the Reformation put forth this sola scriptura notion was that the Roman Catholics had a problem -- their three authorities contradicted each other. So which was authoritative?
Today, of course, there are more alternatives available. We can throw in Science. (That's with a capital "S" because in this application it is somewhat ... divine.) The Bible may say X, but if Science denies X, then the Bible is wrong and Science is right. Oh, sure, the good Christian folk on this wagon might say, "The Bible isn't wrong! It's just ..." and then they'll fill in "misunderstood" or "myth" or something like that. You know, "The Bible says that God created the heavens and the earth, but Science tells us that it occurred by natural means -- Big Bang, Evolution, that kind of stuff -- so clearly the Bible wasn't patently true when it described God creating the world." Science: 1; Bible: 0.
We can throw in Modernity. Back then they thought Y, but our Modern Society knows better. Clearly Y is false. So when God instituted rules on, say, homosexual sex, He didn't have the benefit of our much better Modern Society and its views about sexual orientation and gender identity. These are a horse of a different color. That clears it all up. God and the Bible were wrong. Modernity: 1; Bible: 0.
I'm almost amused at the way that some vague entity popularly known as "Common Sense" gets into this, too. I'm fairly convinced that "Common Sense" is just as real as Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny, but, hey, who am I to say? Coupled with Philosophy and Experience, these two gain substantial superiority over biblical authority. "Yes, yes, Paul claims that there is none who does good, but we know better. Common Sense tells us that this just isn't true." And "The Bible tries to display God as absolute Sovereign, but simply logic will tell you that Free Will requires that God not be absolute Sovereign or Free Will doesn't exist." And Sovereignty disappears in a puff of logic. Common Sense, Experience, and Philosophy: 1; Bible: 0.
Turns out the Bible appears to be pretty low on the list. As it turns out, in fact, there seems to be a common thread here. Just about anything can outweigh the Bible for authority. The goal appears to be a host of authorities ... far more than the supposed three held by the Roman Catholics. No one offers any real reasons for these alternative authorities or any hierarchy for them. The Catholics have contradictions between their three. You can only imagine the contradictions between the Bible and the rest of these self-made authorities. What about the contradictions among this multiplicity? Which one(s) win? I guess your own choice of authority will determine that. (Rest assured it won't be the Bible.)
You see, the Roman Catholics have a different idea. They have a three-pronged structure, where Scripture, the Church, and Tradition are the three authorities. Not one. Thus, one of the reasons that the Reformation put forth this sola scriptura notion was that the Roman Catholics had a problem -- their three authorities contradicted each other. So which was authoritative?
Today, of course, there are more alternatives available. We can throw in Science. (That's with a capital "S" because in this application it is somewhat ... divine.) The Bible may say X, but if Science denies X, then the Bible is wrong and Science is right. Oh, sure, the good Christian folk on this wagon might say, "The Bible isn't wrong! It's just ..." and then they'll fill in "misunderstood" or "myth" or something like that. You know, "The Bible says that God created the heavens and the earth, but Science tells us that it occurred by natural means -- Big Bang, Evolution, that kind of stuff -- so clearly the Bible wasn't patently true when it described God creating the world." Science: 1; Bible: 0.
We can throw in Modernity. Back then they thought Y, but our Modern Society knows better. Clearly Y is false. So when God instituted rules on, say, homosexual sex, He didn't have the benefit of our much better Modern Society and its views about sexual orientation and gender identity. These are a horse of a different color. That clears it all up. God and the Bible were wrong. Modernity: 1; Bible: 0.
I'm almost amused at the way that some vague entity popularly known as "Common Sense" gets into this, too. I'm fairly convinced that "Common Sense" is just as real as Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny, but, hey, who am I to say? Coupled with Philosophy and Experience, these two gain substantial superiority over biblical authority. "Yes, yes, Paul claims that there is none who does good, but we know better. Common Sense tells us that this just isn't true." And "The Bible tries to display God as absolute Sovereign, but simply logic will tell you that Free Will requires that God not be absolute Sovereign or Free Will doesn't exist." And Sovereignty disappears in a puff of logic. Common Sense, Experience, and Philosophy: 1; Bible: 0.
Turns out the Bible appears to be pretty low on the list. As it turns out, in fact, there seems to be a common thread here. Just about anything can outweigh the Bible for authority. The goal appears to be a host of authorities ... far more than the supposed three held by the Roman Catholics. No one offers any real reasons for these alternative authorities or any hierarchy for them. The Catholics have contradictions between their three. You can only imagine the contradictions between the Bible and the rest of these self-made authorities. What about the contradictions among this multiplicity? Which one(s) win? I guess your own choice of authority will determine that. (Rest assured it won't be the Bible.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)