Entries Tagged 'Scripture' ↓

“A heretic is a man who sees things with his own eyes.”

This was almost certainly intended in some rebellious way, but the funny thing is, Proverbs tells me that this is a true statement . . . which makes “seeing things with one’s own eyes” a bad, bad thing.

Now, you can have your cake and eat it too. The Scofield Study Bible has been released in the ESV. The best English translation around today coupled with dispensationalism-friendly notes.

Just the thing to go next to your copy of Left Behind.

My lovely wife bought me a copy of Keith Mathison’s The Shape of Sola Scriptura for my 27th birthday a few weeks ago. I already had a few books sitting on my plate at the time, but I really wanted to start digging into this one, as I recently enjoyed another of Dr. Mathison’s books. Thankfully, one of the books I was in the midst of reading was really short.

The premise of the book is essentially that over the last couple of hundred years, Protestants (especially modern evangelicals) have taken the great “scripture alone” doctrine recovered by the sixteenth-century Reformers and changed it into something that it never was intended to be: an exaltation of the role of the individual and a repudiation of the role and authority of the church. This bastardized version of the doctrine has been weighed and found wanting by many thoughtful now-former Protestants and has (in part) led them to seek stability in Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy. A few passages that struck me as I began reading today . . .

[A] new generation of Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox apologists has been publishing an ever increasing number of books critical of the doctrine of sola scriptura. Many of these men and women who have left Protestantism claim to have grown increasingly frustrated at the tendency within evangelical Protestantism to divide continually over numerous differences of interpretation and at its seeming inability to even begin resolving these differences. They cite the numerous theological fads that permeate Protestantism and the numerous heretics that are readily given a hearing in evangelical circles as long as these heretics claim to be preaching “what the Bible says.” Seeking shelter from the theological chaos that is modern evangelicalism, these men and women fled to communions which claim to have the answer. Part of that answer is a rejection of sola scriptura.

Within evangelicalism, many professing Christians use sola scriptura as a battle cry to justify endless schism. Other professing evangelicals use the slogan sola scriptura to justify every manner of false doctrine imaginable.
( . . . )
If sola scriptura is true, . . . critics ask, then why are Protestants unable to come to agreement on what the Scripture teaches? For these reasons and more, it is absolutely imperative that the heirs of the Reformation be able to define accurately their concept of authority and be able to defend it against its opponents.

Roman Catholic and Orthodox apologists have been effective in their criticisms in large part because of the fact that most Protestants have adopted a subjective and individualistic version of sola scriptura that bears little resemblance to the doctrine of the Reformers. As long as Protestants attempt to maintain this defective version of sola scriptura, and as long as this version of the doctrine is allowed to be identified as the Protestant position, Roman Catholic and Orthodox apologists will continue to effectively demolish it and gain frustrated seekers.

All of that is just from the introduction. Eleven chapters and three hundred pages to go. I’m excited.

(Tags: sola scriptura, keith mathison, bible)

The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever. - Isaiah 40:8 (ESV)

The smartass in me imagines the United Church of Christ giving a response of “fo’eva? Fo’eva-eva? Fo’eva-eva?!” (a la André 3000 in Ms. Jackson).

During the work week, I often drive past Dublin Community Church, a UCC-affiliated church with a beautiful old building. On its sign, there is (or was . . . I’m not certain it’s still there) a sign reading “God Is Still Speaking”. You see, the United Church started a campaign called “StillSpeaking” a year or so ago, with the tagline “God is still speaking,” which is in turn based on a quote attributed to Gracie Allen (wife of George Burns): “Never place a period where God has placed a comma”. (This campaign is most notorious for the infamous “Bouncer” ad that I wrote about late last year on my LiveJournal . . . that entry probably garnered the most comments I’ve ever had for a single post.)

I think that there’s value in the statement, when taken at face value. God isn’t silent and he’s not dead. He speaks constantly through Scripture, through our experiences, through wise teachers, and directly to the hearts of his children through his Spirit. From looking through the StillSpeaking website (along with what I already know of the United Church), though, their use of the slogan seems to largely mean “God is saying new, different, ‘better’ things than what’s recorded in Scripture.” Perhaps that all religions and belief systems somehow will make a person just before God . . . perhaps that homosexual behaviour really isn’t wrong . . . perhaps that man really did come evolve from monkeys. Who knows? Looking through a few websites of UCC congregations, many use it to trumpet the fact that they “welcome all of God’s people,” meaning that your race, marital status, age, and (especially) your sexual behavior won’t bar you from entering for worship. First of all, Scripture suggests nothing different . . . Christ forgives, justifies, and changes all who will come to him by faith. God’s not saying anything new there. Second, “welcoming all of God’s people” is actually a pretty exclusive statement, considering the fact that the only people referred to in Scripture as “God’s people” are believer-followers of God (revealed in Christ). Of course, the UCC would likely never agree to such a restrictive definition. Guess God’s still speaking there, as well, eh?

I can appreciate the sentiment that they’re trying to create . . . a picture of a church with doors open to people of all walks of life. Unfortunately, those that they’re attracting the most with this campaign are those who likely need the Gospel the most . . . and it’s likely that they won’t hear that in the most theologically liberal church group in the country.

God is still speaking, yes. I just don’t believe that he’s saying anything that he hasn’t been telling us for ages, or that he’s taken anything back.

A favorite rallying cry of those who love to denigrate biblical authority regarding sex is that “Jesus never said anything about sex”, implying that what the Apostles said about sex is null and void, since Jesus supposedly never said anything about it.

Not that such a claim would be deserving of any credence if it were actually correct, but I wonder if those folks have ever seen Matthew 15.

The Apostle Paul, writing to the ancient Roman church, said this:

He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality. - Romans 2.6-11 (ESV)

This little passage has irked me for a while now, especially since God began “reforming my heart” about a year and a half ago. Statements like “he will render to each one according to his works” and “there will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil . . . but glory and honor and peace for eveyone who does good”, at first glance and thought, betray my Protestant sensibilities. Does this teach a works-based salvation? Is the very thing that Martin Luther went to battle with Rome over sitting right here in Scripture? Salvation comes by grace alone through faith alone, right? Sola gratia! Sola Fide! This is a “hill upon which to die” for us! What’s all this talk of works?! My mind has wrestled with this passage for hours at a time without resolution, and all of the commentaries in the world (ok, on my bookshelf) didn’t offer much help.

When I looked in the bulletin and saw that Greg would be preaching on this passage tonight, I silently said “PLEASE God, use him to explain this to me”.

God answers prayer.

It was made clear tonight . . . Paul was in no way teaching that one is saved or justified by his works. Indeed, that’s the very thing he rails against in the very next chapter of Romans. We are justified by faith; we are judged by works. To put it another way, God provides our salvation through the faith in Christ that he gives; our works prove that salvation. This is what Paul is saying here, and it echoes James’ sentiment that “faith apart from works is useless” (James 2.20). Yes, God imputes the righteousness of Christ to us when he gives us the gift of faith, but he does not stop there. He does not only elect us to salvation, but also to sanctification, that is, to right living and right thoughts and right attitudes . . . to be “conformed to the image of his son” (Romans 8.29).

Amen.

Thank God for answered prayer, and thank God for people who are willing to be used as vessels to communicate his truth. Soli Deo Gloria!

Now, to glorify him by listening to some old school Havalina Rail Co.

As much as I love to sit and read scripture (often with a steaming cup of some coffee-related beverage close at hand), I’ve had a hard time lately with bringing it to bear upon my intellect and my life. Likewise, I’ve found it really difficult recently to consistently make time for private prayer. (These two are doubtless linked.)

It’s funny, because I have so many tools to make reading and understanding God’s word not only easier, but practical . . . I have such an intellectual concern for accuracy in translation and great study notes . . . I’ve learned how to interpret scripture and discern its different literary characteristics. I (probably) have more brains and (definitely) more training at this whole “Bible” thing than 85% of America’s evangelicals, yet many in that same 85% are probably growing spiritually at a rate exponentially higher than mine.

Stagnancy. That’s where I am. I read scripture out of duty and out of a desire to cram facts into my head . . . not out of a desire to hear God speak. So . . . I’ve identified the problem and it should be easy to correct.

Not so much.