Archive for the ‘Sola Scriptura’ Category
Philosophy and Theology
The cry of the Reformation has long been sola scriptura or “Scripture alone” as the final authority for the disciple of Jesus. We don’t believe that Scripture + Tradition = Christianity but rather Scripture + Nothing = Christianity. This flows from the Roman Catholic idea that the Scriptures, the Church, and the Pope all can speak for God. We reject the idea that God speaks through any other thing in finality other than the Bible. The Bible is the final, inerrant, infallible guide for the Church of Jesus Christ. We don’t need a pope. We don’t need a prophet. We have the Bible and we need to read, study, and exegete the Scriptures in light of Scripture. Scripture must interpret Scripture.
Yet how often do we actually rely on philosophy instead of the Bible to define our beliefs. A case in point is the Calvinist doctrines of the sovereignty of God and limited atonement. To me, both doctrines are not based clearly on sound exegesis of Scripture. Instead, the Calvinist insists that in order for God to be God then He must be in complete control and cause of all things. As R.C. Sproul is famous for saying, “If there is one rebel molecule then God is not sovereign.” Sproul insists that unless God determines all things that come to pass (including evil) to the point that He renders them certain whatsoever comes to pass then He is not sovereign and not God. Sproul argues that only the Calvinist understanding of God’s meticulous control of all things is the only biblical view and any other view leads to atheism. This leads to the Calvinist view that since God is sovereign and causes all things then He surely predestined all things that come to pass whether good or evil and this includes salvation and damnation. If God knew all who would believe then it logically follows that He sent His Son not to die for all but only for the elect that He predestined and enables to believe.
Now all that I have said above is not based on Scripture. Certainly there are some appeals to Scripture but even those Scriptures are interpreted in light of a preconceived philosophical bent. In this case, passages that speak of God controlling all things are seen as God also causing all things such as in Genesis 50:20 or Ephesians 1:11. Passages of Scripture that speak of the universal atonement of Jesus Christ such as John 3:16 or 1 Timothy 2:3-6 or 2 Peter 3:9 are all interpreted in light of the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election based on the divine deterministic view of the sovereignty of God. Surely John 3:16 can’t mean what it says. It must mean something else since God cannot be God unless He causes all things including the sinner’s own condemnation.
Now please don’t misunderstand me and think that I don’t believe that we Arminians don’t appeal to logic. We do. For example, we believe that the Scriptures teach us that God is loving and because He is loving we logically believe that He truly does love all people and desire their salvation so He sent His Son to die for their sins to prove His love (Romans 5:8-9; 1 John 4:14). We do believe that God was glorified in Jesus Christ and that Jesus came to show us God (John 14:9). We believe that Jesus was God in the flesh (John 1:14) and that all that Jesus did was for the glory of the Father and this includes dying for the sins of the world (John 1:29). We do appeal to both Scripture and logic.
But the difference for us Arminians, I believe, is that we are basing our views on sound exegesis of the key passages. For instance, we Arminians do not deny the sovereignty of God. We believe that God was sovereign in creating the world in the way that He did. We believe God grants free will to His creation so that true love can be manifested and yet we believe that God has sovereignly shaped history to glorify His name. Certainly God foreknows all things but this doesn’t mean that He is the direct cause of all things and nor must He be to be God. So when the Arminians reads the Bible and reads passages of Scripture about God’s sovereign rule, we do rejoice in them! We take joy in knowing that our God reigns. Yet we don’t see in those passages that God is sinful nor that He must not just permit sin but also lead the sinner to do what is sinful for the glory of God. We see no Scriptural basis for such a view (James 1:12-15).
For more on the Arminian view of God’s sovereignty as opposed to R.C. Sproul’s view, I recommend the book God’s Strategy in Human History.
>Prima Scriptura
>Scot McKnight recently posted about the issues around sola scriptura and how he prefers to use the term, “prima scriptura” to describe his own view of the Bible. In McKnight’s words, prima scriptura means that the Bible is the primary source of theology, teaching, truth, etc. but this doesn’t mean that we don’t look at what others have said on issues such as the early Church Fathers, the creeds, traditions, etc.
There is certainly some truth to what he wrote. I would agree that there is nothing wrong with looking at what Arminius or Calvin or Spurgeon or Wesley had to say about Scripture or what their practices were in regard to obeying the Scriptures. We can learn much from studying the creeds of the Church or the doctrinal statements of various movements in the Church. We can also learn from reading from the Church Fathers or even from those whom we might disagree such as Catholic theologians or Orthodox theologians. I have a friend of who loves to read what various Jewish scholars have had to say about the Old Testament laws and rituals.
Yet I still don’t believe it is necessary to abandon the idea of sola scriptura. By this, the Reformers meant that the Scriptures alone (and not the Catholic Church or any other church) are the standard for truth. I would agree and I believe McKnight would as well. Arminius affirmed the authority of the Scriptures when he wrote,
The authority of Scripture is nothing else but the worthiness according to which it merits (1.) CREDENCE, as being true in words and true in significations, whether it simply declares anything; or also promises and threatens; and (2.) as a superior, it merits OBEDIENCE through the credence given to it, when it either commands or prohibits anything.
So we can conclude from Arminius that he rightly held the Bible to be the foundation for the Church of Jesus Christ. The Bible was to be heeded to by the Church and the Bible alone was to be the final and faithful authority.
Yet again it is right to read the works of great saints of God and learn from them. I do this all the time when I read books on prayer by E.M. Bounds or when I study theology proper with A.W. Tozer. Much can be gleamed from reading other books but in the final analysis, the Bible alone is the inerrant and infallible Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:16-21).
>The Church Should Stand For Truth
>Lead me in your truth and teach me, for you are the God of my salvation; for you I wait all the day long.
- Psalm 25:5
Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.
- John 17:17
If I delay, you may know how ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth.
- 1 Timothy 3:15
2 John is an amazing letter. It is only 13 verses and yet John’s focus is that the disciples that he is writing to abide in truth. Contrary to the postmodern mindset, John writes that our fellowship is based on truth (2 John 1-2). He warns the Church to abide in the truth (2 John 9) and he warns them that many deceivers have gone out (2 John 7). He warns them, in good Arminian theology, to watch themselves lest they lose what they have worked for (1 Corinthians 9:24-27; 2 Corinthians 11:2-4) and that they may receive their full reward (Hebrews 10:19-39).
What amazes me the most is that John says that the disciples should center their fellowship around the truth. Today’s church, at least in the West, centers around methodology and not theology. You don’t see, except in a few cases, churches gathering around doctrinal issues anymore. Now they revolve around methodology. The fellowship of the truth has been abandoned in the spirit of the age (2 Timothy 4:3-4) and with the American ideal of tolerance. Tolerance has gone beyond merely allowing someone to hold a contrary view to now we must not just allow them to hold to that view but we must accept it as truthful even if we don’t agree.
I don’t know if you realize this but all the Apostles of Jesus were killed for their faith. All of them died for the cause of Jesus Christ. The postmodern would mock such a sacrifice. The Apostles laid down their lives for the truth of Jesus (John 14:6). They died believing and standing on the gospel, that Jesus was the only way to God and that His name alone is the only name by which we can be saved (Acts 4:12). They died knowing that there is no other way to God but through Jesus (1 Timothy 2:1-6). They died knowing that Jesus laid His life down for the Church (Acts 20:28) and that His blood alone atones for our sins before a holy and perfect God (Romans 3:22-25). This was not up for debate to the Apostles. Their letters are clear: Jesus is to be loved above all, cherished and adored, and He is to be followed at all costs even to the death (Luke 9:23-25). They tolerated others to hold to contrary beliefs but they recognized that in the end, those holding to false teachers would be condemned (Galatians 1:6-9; 2 Thessalonians 1:8-10). Even in Acts 17, which is a passage that pragmatist love to quote from, Paul called those outside of following Jesus to repent (Acts 17:30-31). Where is that being preached today by the postmodern preacher?
For 2000 years the Church has stood for the truth. Yes we have seen much error creep into the Church through Satan but God has preserved His Word through the Church of Jesus Christ. The Word of God remains inerrant and infallible after 2000 years. What an amazing God! Yet all around us we see error in the Church. From Rob Bell to Todd Bentley and everyone in-between, we see errors. We must abide in the Word of God. We must remain committed to the Reformation principle of Sola Scriptura. We need men and women of God who will be willing, if necessary, to die for the Bible in defense of the truth of God. I pray that I am one such person. Truth does matter.
>Teaching the Scriptures vs. Counseling from the Scriptures
>It seems to me that many of the churches that I am familiar with are more and more using the Scriptures as a book to proof-text their counseling of human problems. Entire series’ of talks now are being given by “lead pastors” that are focused on problems such as marriage, family, failures, passion, etc. Instead of teaching the Scriptures and taking people deeper in their understanding of the Word of God, too often the “sermons” are counseling sessions where the speaker hopes you will be encouraged and that his talk would be relevant to your life. Teaching the Scriptures, of course, is seen as archaic and out of touch with real life issues. Or so we are told.
My plea is that “lead pastors” would abandon their CEO mentalities and embrace the biblical call to teach the Word. 2 Timothy 4:1-5 should be enough to encourage the Bible teacher to teach the truths of Scripture and avoid trying to attract a crowd using worldly means. As John MacArthur wrote, “If we will concern ourselves with the depth of our ministries, God will see to the breadth of our ministries.” Too often the CEO minded modern church leader has his mind on the bottom line: finances and is not concerning primarily with passionately teaching the Scriptures.
Ephesians 4:11-16 is the most quoted verse for the modern pastorate. While I believe much of the modern pastorate has little to do with the Bible and has more to do with traditions and with the business world that with the kingdom of God, nonetheless the current pastorates are often self defeating. Instead of following the pattern of Ephesians 4:11-16 and seeking to help disciples of Jesus become more and more independent in their service to the King, many “lead pastors” create an atmosphere of utter dependence upon the clergy. In a return almost to the days of Roman Catholicism, the modern pastorate fails to allow the individual person to learn how to read, study, and apply the Bible to their daily life apart from the clergy. If Ephesians 4:11-16 is correctly applied, the clergy should be seeking to teach their way out of their positions instead of intrenching the church more and more into dependence upon them. By the way, the word “pastor” in Ephesians 4:11 is only translated that way here and is not the best translation. The ESV correctly translates it better as shepherd. Jesus, of course, is the great shepherd of the sheep (John 10:10-16; Hebrews 13:20) and He is in control of His Church above any professional clergy (Colossians 1:15-18; 1 Peter 2:25).
The true elder in the Church knows that their position is one of humility and service (Matthew 20:20-28). True leaders serve Jesus as Lord and His Church by following Jesus’ example given to us (John 13:1-17). 1 Peter 5:1-5 calls elders in the Church to lead by examples as servants and not as lording it over the flock of God which has been given to them by God Himself (Acts 20:28-32). In no way did our Lord establish a clergy-laity system that makes some people “full time ministers” and others as simple “laity” who pays the clergy to serve the people. That system is unbiblical and self-defeating. The true elder does not teach the Word for money but out of service to Jesus Christ as Lord. They know that He, the sovereign God, will repay them in His timing.
Now certainly there is nothing wrong with Bible teachers in the local church teaching on subjects related to life issues such as stress, work, marriage, family, children, etc. But the point of every teaching should be 1) to glorify God (1 Peter 4:11; cf. Colossians 3:16-17) and 2) with an eye on teaching the Scriptures as the final authority above all others including opinions, popular culture, or the latest fad. The duty of the Bible teacher is to point the disciple to the Word of God as the only true source for knowing and doing the will of God (Romans 12:1-2 NIV). The focus of the elder then is on pleasing the Shepherd and making Him great. Our names, our series’, our titles, etc. are meaningless before the One who alone is worthy to be worshiped and adored (1 Timothy 6:15-16). In eternity, only Jesus will be praised and not us or our teachings.
Sadly, the modern Western Church is run like a business. Sermons, programs, and anything else is geared toward the bottom line: numbers. The more people equals more money. But the true elder, the true Spirit-led Bible teacher cares nothing about money or about fame or about having their name glorified by men but their focus is simple: make Jesus great before His Church. Ephesians 4:11-16 is sadly being abandoned and people are not being trained to do the work of the ministry but are hearing pop pschology from the pulpit instead of the fear of the Lord (Proverbs 1:7; cf. Psalm 112:1). Instead of filling disciples hearts and minds with the inerrant and infallible Word of God, we are being spoon fed spiritual junk food that is poor for the soul (1 Peter 2:1-3).
David Wilkerson recently wrote, “We do not have a famine of the Word of God but rather we have a famine of hearing the Word of God.” He is right. Amos 8:11 is true in the Western Church. We have Bibles everywhere and we have so many study Bibles and so many Bible teachings but we don’t have a hearing of the Word of God in the Church. We hear sermons but they are not Bible sermons. They lack the convicting Word of God (Hebrews 4:12-13).
In closing, ask yourself this question: Does the Bible teacher that I sit under convict me from the Scriptures? If not, why not? I admit that I enjoy hearing a Bible lesson at times that encourages me and we do need that (1 Corinthians 14:26) but the Word of God should also convict us. We all stumble (James 3:2; 1 John 1:10) and so we need the Word of God to correct us and call us to repentance. Jesus said that those whom He loves, He reproves and disciplines (Revelation 3:19) and I believe His primary way of doing this is from the convicting Word of God either that we receive from the Spirit while reading or from a Bible teacher. We need both!
May the Lord give us ears to hear what He is saying to us in His Word (Revelation 3:22).
Why Inerrancy DOES Matter
Recently Dr. Roger Olson wrote a piece on his blog entitled, Why Inerrancy Doesn’t Matter. In essence he tried to distance himself from those who use the word “inerrancy” to describe their belief that the Bible is without error. Olson claimed that such a view is not warranted and that it is not logical to hold such a view. He prefers the term “infallible” though I would argue that to hold to infallibility of the Bible is to hold to its inerrancy as well as these two terms go together as I pointed out in my last post quoting from Dr. Jack Cottrell.
On one hand I understand Dr. Olson’s dilemma. He is a professor at Baylor University which is not the hot seat for evangelical theology these days. Many of the supporters of Baylor come from the moderate Southern Baptist position and many have withdrawn from fellowship with the SBC over the issue of inerrancy. Thanks be to God that the SBC largely today is conservative in their theology and embraces inerrancy. I then understand that Dr. Olson is surrounded by critics of both the SBC and inerrancy and therefore I can understand how one can be swept into this sort of thinking. I am only speculating at this point as to why Olson rejects inerrancy. I, on the other hand, attended a very conservative Bible college that not only required all their professors to espouse inerrancy (and teach it) but required each student to sign a doctrinal statement each year saying that we held to inerrancy. While my college labored at textual criticism, they also affirmed inerrancy and I am thankful they did.
The issue of inerrancy is not an Arminian or Calvinist issue. On both sides of the Arminian/Calvinist debate there have been those who held to inerrancy and those who rejected it. For example, Dr. Olson is an Arminian who rejects inerrancy. The late Kenneth Grider also rejected inerrancy. On the Calvinist side we have the entire PCUSA denomination that has rejected inerrancy as well as Princeton Seminary which was the bastion of Calvinistic theology at the turn of the 20th century. This issue goes beyond the walls of Arminian or Calvinistic churches and colleges. It is a Christian issue.
Why should we take seriously the Bible’s claims to be the inspired Word of God as it states in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 or 2 Peter 1:21? It is because truth is at stake and primarily an objective reference point for truth and sound doctrine. The basis requirements, as stated by Dr. Jack Cottrell, for sound doctrine are good textual criticism, correct translation of the text, and proper exegesis of the text. But if the Bible is not inerrant, then a more basis requirement intrudes: one must decide which biblical statements are true and thus authoritative for doctrine, and which are tainted with error and thus useless for doctrine.
For Olson and others who reject inerrancy then their first question when they approach the Bible must be: “What is there in this passage that we cannot believe?” When a person denies inerrancy they are saying that there are errors in the Bible – somewhere.
But where are the errors? There is simply no way to answer this question. The person who approaches the Bible and rejects inerrancy must set up their own method of trying to figure out what is truthful and what is not or what they deem as in error and what is not. What often happens is that the “truth” of Scripture becomes what the reader wants the truth to be. Thus truth becomes mystical, experiential, and not based on objectivity. Basic fundamental questions of exegesis are meaningless if in fact the Bible contains errors somewhere.
Another reason that inerrancy matters is the issue of authority. Olson claims that he believes the Bible is infallible but again if the Bible contains errors somewhere then one must decide what statements in the Bible are in fact infallible. For example if one rejects the notion of a literal Adam and Eve or that Jesus didn’t really walk on the water or that Jonah was truly swallowed by a great fish prepared by God or that the children of Israel crossed the Red Sea on dry ground and then it closed in on the approaching Egyptians then how can one still claim to believe that Jesus rose from the dead apart from merely saying that you hold to this by faith without any objective reality? How can you declare that certain things are sins if in the fact the Bible contains errors somewhere? How can you declare that people must repent and be saved in Jesus Christ (Acts 2:38-39) if in fact you don’t really know if what the New Testament said about Jesus is actually true and without any errors?
History shows us that when the inerrancy of the Bible is rejected, other doctrines will follow. Why? Because the Bible is the source for objective basis for our faith. We can declare that Jesus is risen because the Bible tells us so. How do we know the Bible is truthful on this point and others? Because of Christian apologetics for the Bible itself and its claims from history to science to empirical evidence. But when the Bible is either ignored or rejected, the basis for authority becomes a person (such as the Pope or the Mormon Prophet), a group (such as the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society), or the individual experience (neo-orthodoxy) of the person. Authority is misplaced and truth is cast aside for errors. But when one believes the Bible to be the inerrant and infallible Word of God, truth is contained in the written Scriptures. We can know God and His ways through His Word (Micah 6:8; John 17:3; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; Hebrews 5:11-14). Yet when the inerrancy of the Bible is cast aside, we often need new “revelation” to correct the myriad of errors made down through the centuries to remove what the established “church” didn’t like so we need a prophet or a vision or a mystical encounter with Christ in order to validate our truths.
Further, if the Bible is not inerrant then what does it matter how it reads compared to other books. If I believe that lying is okay and the Bible says it it not, who cares if the Bible has errors somewhere? Its possible that someone added that lying was a sin because they were hurt by lies but in the eyes of God, its possible that He doesn’t take lying seriously but who can know? If the Bible is not inerrant, how can we claim to be speaking for God on cultural issues regarding sin such as homosexuality, adultery, pornography, or a host of other issues? Since the Bible contains errors somewhere then its possible that it contains errors everywhere.
Some will reject at this point that I am not being fair toward Olson since he claims he accepts the infallibility of the Bible but not its inerrancy. However, if we look at the definition for infallibility: “incapable of error; unable to err, to lie, or to make mistakes” and compare it to inerrancy: “absence of error, actually not containing any errors” then we see that the term infallible is a stronger term. Does Olson intend this meaning? I think not. I, of course, hold to both inerrancy and infallibility and believe that these two terms go hand in hand. They, if you will, feed off one another. Together they build a strong view of the Bible that upholds it is the standard by which we judge all things and by which we can preach the eternal gospel of Christ.
So how can Olson claim to believe that the Bible is infallible? Like many who reject inerrancy he would hold that the Bible is infallible regarding issues related to the gospel. But again, how can we accept the truthfulness of the biblical writers about Jesus and salvation if in fact the Bible has errors somewhere? Olson has no authority to argue that what he claims about the Christian faith is absolute in its truthfulness and has no baring toward other religions such as Islam since in fact we don’t know if the Bible actually contains the fullness of the gospel. Further, Islam’s claim is that the Bible is corrupt by men and thus we needed a prophet to speak for God and so He sent Mohammad.
In summary, inerrancy matters then for the following:
- Authority to speak for God (2 Peter 1:16-21)
- The standard by which we judge all things (1 Thessalonians 5:21; 1 John 4:1-4) and speak for God on all things that He has stated in His Word
- Authority by which to judge sin (John 7:24; 1 Corinthians 5)
- Authority by which to declare sins forgiven (John 20:31; Romans 5:1-11)
- Authority by which we declare that Jesus is risen, that He is Lord of all, and that He is the way, the truth, and the life and the only way to God (Matthew 28:6; John 14:6; Philippians 2:5-11; 1 Timothy 2:3-6) and that by faith in Jesus we can be saved (John 5:24; 6:29; Acts 16:30-34; Romans 10:9-13)
- Stands upon the testimony of the Bible itself that it is truthful (John 17:17; 2 Timothy 3:16-17), that it is flawless (Psalm 18:30 NIV) and that the Bible speaks for God (Romans 3:4) and that the Scriptures cannot be broken (John 10:35)
- Upholds the view of Jesus that the Scriptures are true and trustworthy (Matthew 5:17-18) and is the sword by which we defeat the enemy (Matthew 4:1-11; Ephesians 6:17)
Inerrancy does matter and we can not fully embrace infallibility of the Bible without also embracing its inerrancy.
Lastly, if we Arminians believe in the sovereignty of God then how can we doubt that God is able to protect the Bible from error if in fact He knew that the Gospel of Jesus Christ that alone brings salvation would come forth from His Word? If we believe that God controls all things (Romans 8:28; Ephesians 1:11) then how can we doubt that God sovereignly is able to protect His Word from any errors whatsoever (Psalm 12:6-7)? I firmly believe in the sovereignty of God and that He is able to protect and preserve His Word forever (Psalm 119:89).
Al Mohler On Inerrancy
Ironically with Dr. Roger Olson writing his blog piece on inerrancy and why he feels it doesn’t matter, Dr. Al Mohler wrote a piece this week on why inerrancy does matter. The article is worth reading. His piece points out that the fight for inerrancy must be fought just as hard today as it was fifty years ago. Why fifty years? Up until 50 years ago the battle of inerrancy had mainly been with liberals but then it begin to turn and the battle begin to be not just with liberals but with those inside the evangelical church who begin to reject inerrancy.
One thing that I have pointed out before and will say again, I have never heard of God’s blessing resting on a group, a movement, or anyone personally that I knew who claimed to be a disciple of Jesus yet rejected the authority of the Bible in all things. Holding firmly to the full authority of the Bible can only lead to acceptance of its truthfulness and trustworthiness in all areas from theology to science to social issues, etc. I would not claim to be an expert by any means on Church History but I have read several books on Church History and down through the years the greatest examples of God’s passion for the lost, for missions, for worship, for prayer, etc. have been those who firmly held that God had spoken in the Bible and He had not stuttered. From John Wesley to Arminius to Calvin to Spurgeon, these great men of faith loved the Bible and firmly held that it was truthful in all that it said. Perhaps they did not use the term “inerrancy” (for this didn’t appear in our theological terms until the late 19th century) but nonetheless, they did hold to the Bible’s authority in all issues. In my readings of Wesley or Arminius, they never questioned the authority of the Bible in all that it addresses.
More to come on inerrancy…..
