SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : The Cult of Biblicism

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 Next Page )
PosterThread
Miccah
Member



Joined: 2007/9/13
Posts: 1752
Wisconsin

 Re:

Quote:
Why are you making this about me?



I am making this about the Word, Jesus. You are in fact making it about you by implying that the Word is not the final authority on the issue, but that your revelation with the Lord is.

Quote:
Is it fair to say that to someone ("your final authority is yourself") when you have a disagreement?



pilgrim777, you have shown here over and over that you do not take scripture for the truth that it is. In fact, I see you twist it to fit your theology.

Let me ask you something, should someone stay quite when another stands up and bastardizes the Word of the Lord?

If I am mistaken that you don't believe the Word is bondage, then I appologize. Yet, your own words in these postings this last few days have shown that you do in fact believe it is bondage.


_________________
Christiaan

 2012/1/12 16:47Profile
pilgrim777
Member



Joined: 2011/9/30
Posts: 1211


 Re:

You are right, Twayne.

The Spirit and the written Word always agree when handled by the Spirit.

The Spirit and the written Word do not agree when handled by carnality.

There are extremes to both positions.

Very good points.

Pilgrim

 2012/1/12 16:48Profile
pilgrim777
Member



Joined: 2011/9/30
Posts: 1211


 Re:

Miccah, if you would ask me specific questions about the Bible I will answer you.

 2012/1/12 16:49Profile
Miccah
Member



Joined: 2007/9/13
Posts: 1752
Wisconsin

 Re:

Is the Bible the true Word of God, inerrant?


_________________
Christiaan

 2012/1/12 16:51Profile
pilgrim777
Member



Joined: 2011/9/30
Posts: 1211


 Re:

Are you talking about any Bible version or a specific one?

 2012/1/12 16:52Profile
Robert_79
Member



Joined: 2007/3/13
Posts: 23
Dallas

 Re:

I have read this thread with some interest. I have been asking myself the same questions for some years, as I have had many friends who would say that the Bible is the only authority in their lives, and they study it much. But they have gotten off into some really strange and sometimes heretical doctrine. I have been in other situations where I have been told to do whatever my "spiritual leader" said and that he would be responsible for whatever I did since he was the one that told me to do it.

There are dangers on both sides. I read a book called The Shape of Sola Scriptura by Keith Mathison which was really helpful for me as I thought through the issue. I might not agree with every single thing he says, but overall it was a helpful way to think about the question of "Sola Scriptura". I wrote a short summary of it, which I have included below. I hope this is helpful to some of you.

The Shape of Sola Scriptura Review

I recently read the book, The Shape of Sola Scriptura by Keith Mathison. It looked like an interesting book, and I was not disappointed.

The basic premise of this book is that the term sola scriptura used by Luther, Calvin, and the other magisterial reformers has been hijacked by modern evangelicals. He states that because modern evangelicals have twisted this doctrine so badly, many have become disillusioned with Protestantism and are fleeing to the Catholic Church and the strong sense of authority.

Mathison argues that this is an extremely important issue. He takes an in-depth look at how the early church thought of the relationship between Scripture and the church and Scripture and tradition. Basically, he contends that the early church saw Scripture as the one authority, but believed that Scripture must be interpreted according to the regula fidei, or rule of faith. In other words, the dominant idea of Scripture and tradition was that only Scripture was the divinely inspired Word of God.

From the 4th century on, there are passages from various men which could be interpreted as appealing to tradition as a secondary source of revelation, but they are ambiguous at best, and most still seem to see Scripture as the one authority. William of Ockham in the 1300s is the first person to clearly state the idea of a two-source revelation. He believed that Scripture and unwritten tradition were two equal sources of revelation. His idea was rejected at the time, but came to be useful to the pope later, and has since become the official teaching of Catholicism. (This is ironic because at the time it was written against the pope who affirmed Scripture to be the final authority.)

Around the time of the reformation, this view was gaining popularity. Luther, Calvin, and the other reformers were fighting against this view of a two-source theory of revelation, which Mathison refers to as Tradition II. The reformers were arguing for a return to the theory held by the early church, which he calls Tradition I. Again, Tradition I would assert that Scripture is the only infallible and ultimate authority, but it would give weight to ecumenical councils, creeds, and the true teaching authority of the church.

The reformers used the term sola Scriptura to refer to this position. The anabaptists, or radical reformers, came to a position which Mathison refers to as Tradition 0. Their position was essentially that neither tradition, the historical teaching of the church, nor anything else had any bearing on issues. The only issue is, “What saith the Scriptures?” Mathison points out that this is dangerous, and points to some of the excesses and dangerous doctrines that it led to in the radical reformation (Anabaptists).

In the battle over Scripture and tradition, the Catholic church became increasingly convinced of the two-source theory of revelation. Indeed, it must have some such invention since so many of its doctrines are obviously against the Scripture. In later days, Mathison argues that Catholicism actually embraces something even more dangerous. It says that the Catholic Church itself and the pope when he speaks ex cathedra, are actually infallible. This means that whenever the Catholic church speaks to any doctrinal or practical matter authoritatively, by definition it cannot be wrong. Mathison calls this Tradition 3. It is the idea that whatever the Catholic Church says today is inherently true, and also, that it is what the Catholic church has always taught.

Mathison points out that America has been much influenced by the Anabaptist idea of Scriptural interpretation, as well as by the radical individualism of the Enlightenment. He makes the statement that American Christianity has been influenced much more by the rationalism of the Enlightenment than by Scripture or history. This is probably true.

Mathison then looks at the four different ideas of Tradition.

Tradition 0—Mathison asserts that this is the position of most evangelicals today. It is the position that says that all we need is the Bible. If we just look to Scripture and allow the Holy Spirit to guide us, we will find the truth. He points out the results of this; thousands of denominations claiming mutually exclusive things; heresies being propagated throughout evangelicalism, etc... Mathison argues that the problem with Tradition 0 is that ultimately it leads to autonomy. Whenever we speak of Scripture, we are necessarily speaking of someone's interpretation of Scripture. So if I say that the only authority in my life is the Word of God, what I am really saying is that the only authority in my life is myself and how I choose to interpret the Word of God. He states that this is dangerous. I believe he is correct. Each one of us is easily deceived by ourselves, and if the standard is simply what I think the Bible says, I may be led into grave error.

Tradition 2—This is the Catholic idea that there are 2 sources of revelation: Scripture and tradition. Mathison rightly points out that in practice, unwritten tradition always becomes corrupted. He further points out that the Catholic church can't even tell anyone which are the unwritten traditions from the apostles that we are supposed to obey. Furthermore, when you have an unwritten and a written authority, it is easy to use the supposedly unwritten tradition to interpret the written one. He points out that some of the things supposedly handed down from the apostles were never mentioned until the 1800s! It seems like if they were really handed down from the apostles, we could find some record of them before the 1800s. For instance, the Catholic church has recently declared things such as that Mary was born of a virgin, ascended to heaven, and always remained a virgin. Mathison points out that such a concept really invalidates the Word of God.

Tradition 3—Even more shocking than Tradition 2, Tradition 3 says the Catholic church is always right. The Scripture repeatedly warns us of false prophets, deceivers, etc... and exhorts us to test all things. The Catholic church invalidates this command by simply saying that it is always right. So there is absolutely no way to check and see if such an entity is off the narrow road, if the only authority she allows is herself. The job of Catholic theologians in many instances, is to read the present decisions made by the church back into Scripture or into history.

Mathison says the ultimate problem with all of these is that they lead to autonomy. The Protestant version leads to autonomy of the individual, while the Catholic and Orthodox version leads to autonomy of the church. In both instances, there is virtually no way to be held accountable. The fruit of this can be seen in both cases.

Mathison argues for Tradition I—The idea is that Scripture alone is the supreme authority, but that Scripture is interpreted by the church, and not just by the individual. Mathison acknowledges the difficulty is that there is not one visible true church today, but many branches of the church. He asserts that for the first 300 years or so of Christianity, this was not the case. The visible church had issues come up, and they would call a council to decide. He points out that even the apostles themselves did not deal with issues single-handedly, but would have councils about various important issues.

Ultimately, I get the sense that Mathison is simply putting out some boundaries. He is not able to say exactly what this should look like in every aspect. But he says strongly that it should not look like Catholic autonomy of the church or evangelical autonomy of the individual. He points to the Nicene Creed, the definition of Chalcedon, and the canon of Scripture as areas where we trust the judgment of the church. He cites proponents of tradition 0 saying that these councils are no more authoratative than the writings of an individual believer. Mathison strongly disagrees. He would say that where the church has ruled on such matters, they are no longer open questions. It is not acceptable to be debating whether Jesus was really God. That question has been settled by the church, as has the Trinity, the canon, etc...

The difficulty lies in that there were many councils that profess to be ecumenical councils. Some, such as the Council of Trent, were obviously heretical and said that anyone who believes the true Gospel is eternally damned. Mathison points to the corporate testimony of the Holy Spirit in the saints of God throughout history. He would say that the Nicene Creed, the definition of Chalcedon, and the NT canon are settled matters for the people of God throughout history, and thus we should accept their authority. He says that men are fallible and may err, but that does not mean they will always err. He acknowledges that sometimes the church may go astray, and that we are to know the Scriptures and be on guard against error. But he says that this is a serious thing.

One thing he states that is interesting is the idea that the invisible church is scattered throughout various branches of Christendom. He says these are not necessarily good churches or pure churches, but that they are churches, as evidenced by enough teaching of the Gospel for people to be converted, and the presence of believers in their midst. He says this is not God's will. And that it is a great scandal and tragedy that the church of Jesus Christ is split up into so many groups, etc... He prays for the day that there will be a unity based not on the false uniformity of Rome or the doctrinal indifference of liberals, but on the truth of Jesus Christ.

Overall, this book was interesting. I think it brought into focus some things that have been somewhat hazy for me before, but I'm not sure that it really changed how I see things. It seems to leave me in a pretty similar place to the one I was in. I was hoping he could recommend something to fix all my problems. No such luck. But it is a good reminder that the Lord has placed us in a body, and that we need each other, not just locally, but globally and throughout history, if we are to follow the Lord faithfully and be true ambassadors to a world that is perishing.

 2012/1/12 16:52Profile
Miccah
Member



Joined: 2007/9/13
Posts: 1752
Wisconsin

 Re:

Pick your favorite Bible version...


_________________
Christiaan

 2012/1/12 16:53Profile
pilgrim777
Member



Joined: 2011/9/30
Posts: 1211


 Re:

Hi Robert79,

That was a very interesting article.

Quote:
Overall, this book was interesting. I think it brought into focus some things that have been somewhat hazy for me before, but I'm not sure that it really changed how I see things. It seems to leave me in a pretty similar place to the one I was in. I was hoping he could recommend something to fix all my problems. No such luck. But it is a good reminder that the Lord has placed us in a body, and that we need each other, not just locally, but globally and throughout history, if we are to follow the Lord faithfully and be true ambassadors to a world that is perishing.



God has place us in a Body and He is the Head of the Church. He has not replaced Himself by a Pope in Rome or a Pope on paper. Just like when the Apostles came together and prayed and the Spirit of the Lord revealed the truth to them, we have to do the same thing. You are right, many things in the Bible are clearcut and are not arguable. But there are many decisions that take place in a Body where the clearcut direction is not always apparent in the Bible, so the brothers should all seek the Lord together to get the "mind of Christ".

Steven Kaung says that when brothers do not agree on something they should continue to seek the Lord until they all have the mind of Christ on the matter. No reason to make a decision just because the majority agree. He stressed the fact that the Spirit of God was able to bring complete unity amongst the brothers regarding an issue. God is not the Author of Confusion and is capable of speaking to His Body much like He did at the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15.

Thanks again for the article.

Pilgrim

 2012/1/12 17:05Profile
Robert_79
Member



Joined: 2007/3/13
Posts: 23
Dallas

 Re:

Hi Pilgrim,

Thanks for the response. I appreciate it. Honestly, I was being somewhat facetious in saying that I hoped the book would solve all my problems. We always want a pill, a book, a formula, but it is only as I abide in Christ day by day that I can walk in the Spirit and be safeguarded from error. May the Lord continue to give us grace to know and love His Word, be led by His Spirit, and be submitted in His church.

Robert

 2012/1/12 17:30Profile
pilgrim777
Member



Joined: 2011/9/30
Posts: 1211


 Re:

Great word Robert and I am in complete agreement with every word you just typed.

Pilgrim

 2012/1/12 17:32Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy