Sola Scriptura

Though not espoused by name, most Pentes I know adhere to the concept of Sola Scriptura at least in a theoretical way. To state the theory as succinctly as possible (following James White) one might say that Sola Scriptura is the belief that the Bible alone provides a sufficient and infallible rule of faith for the Church. Therefore, no other guide is needed and nothing not found in or implied by Scripture is necessary for us to believe.

In A. A. Hodge’s Outlines of Theology the following explanation is presented:

What is meant by saying that the Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and practice?
Whatever God teaches or commands is of sovereign authority. Whatever conveys to us an infallible knowledge of his teachings and commands is an infallible rule. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the only organs through which, during the present dispensation, God conveys to us a knowledge of his will about what we are to believe concerning himself, and what duties he requires of us. [available at http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/aahsolascrp.htm]

There are some big problems that immediately present themselves, even with only this short synopsis of Sola Scriptura. The first and most obvious is that NOWHERE do the Scriptures say or imply this idea of exclusivity that is the bedrock of the theory. So by its own criteria, we are not bound to believe that theory of SS because it isn’t in the Bible.

SS proponents, of course, will quote one passage in a knee-jerk reaction to the above: 2 Timothy 3:14-17:

“But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; (15) And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. (16) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (17) That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.”

The problem is there seems to be a word, phrase or idea missing here: that Scripture is the exclusive rule of faith or “the only supernatural revelation that God does now make to man.” (Hodge) When this statement was penned the only Scripture that Timothy has was the Old Testament, so then can we too depend only on the OT to lead us? If the OT was alone sufficient, why did the Spirit even give us a New Testament at all?

In reading Hodge, we also find out that a large part of the Sola Scriptura mantra is the idea that every person can interpret the Scripture by using his/her private judgment. Will that offer and infallible guide? Let’s listen to Hodge’s answer:

We do not pretend that the private judgment of Protestants is infallible, but only that when exercised in a humble, believing spirit, it always leads to a competent knowledge of essential truth.

Thank God, Mr. Hodge does not claim that Protestant private judgment is infallible! What he does claim is, however, equally problematic. Consider the following:

a. How does one know then it is exercised in a “humble, believing spirit”? Doesn’t Jeremiah tell us that the heart is exceedingly deceitful? So how can we know if we are humble and believing or just believing that we are humble and believing?
b. What do we do when two Protestant private judgments lead to two very disparate conclusions? Which one is true? How do we tell? Is there a humble and believing test that we can give to the interpreters to see which one really is?
c. Who has the authority to decide what a competent knowledge is? Who decides what essential truth is?
d. If a person seems to be humble and believing and espouses a doctrine that other humble and believing Protestants deem heretical, is there any way to tell which one is right?

Now consider this from Hodge:

Each Christian must know and believe the truth explicitly for himself; on the direct ground of its own moral and spiritual evidence, and not on the mere ground of blind authority.

So instead of tradition that has been handed down to us over 2000 years of Church history and attested by the Councils and Fathers of the Church, we should depend solely on ourselves on the ground of our own moral and spiritual evidence. If he were not being serious, that statement would be comical. Does one not need to have faith in God’s Word on “blind authority?” Faith, after all, is not build on evidence (Hebrews says “faith is the evidence), but on “hearing the Word.”

I amazed at the very this very ludicrous set of assertions is given any credibility. According to the website, Hodge’s book is “still regarded as a great introduction to classical Protestant theology. “ To me that is really scary. But what is more frightening is that there are millions of Protestant Popettes running around with their own private Scriptural interpretations who are certain that they are correct although no one in all of church history has held the interpretations or opinions that they hold.

Halloween

In a sharp departure (and some may say “declension”) from my generally historical-theological postings, I embark now on a more schizophrenic rant on the very timely subject of Halloween. Before anyone has a chance to think the question, I will answer: No, the Church Fathers and Councils do not offer any guidance on this subject particularly.

At the outset let me warn the kind reader not to expect any sense of conclusiveness or feeling of closure in this post. Rather, I will offer some random (and some not so random) thoughts and observations on the subject. For these offerings, I will be branded a “compromising liberal” by some and a “Puritanical Pharisee” by others. Be that as it may!

I have been around church people from all parts of the spectrum when it comes to Halloween. I have known those who had a haunted house in their church building and those who would not allow the use of the word “Halloween.” At this point in my life, I am probably somewhere in the middle of these two extremes (well, I am middle-aged). I have no illusion that I will satisfy either extreme and probably not the middle either. Nonetheless, I offer these observations.

First, I am compelled to say that I feel it is disingenuous at best and totally hypocritical at worst to have a party (or festival or whatever) on or about October 31 and have essentially the same activities as a Halloween party, and yet call it “harvest festival” or (puke!) “Hallelujah.” After all, a rose by any other name is still a rose.

If something is truly a “harvest festival,” it might well be held any time between August and December. And I am certain that a “Hallelujahfest” would be appropriate any time of the year and would not involve dressing up in costumes. This kind of self-deceptive word play is quite nauseating from my point of view and serves mainly to assuage the conscience of the conscientious (because most people don’t actually give a rat’s rump either way).

A second point that I must put forward is that I do believe that there can be psychological harm inflicted by gory, scary, and violent costumes, games, and decorations. (This would apply equally to movies and TV shows of the same genre.) I know for a fact that children can be traumatized to the point of needing counseling because of such things; therefore, I cannot in good conscience endorse them.

But what about the other issues? Well this is where the schizoid side will begin to show.

What about costumes depicting devils and witches and such? Generally speaking, I have not been in favor of them but there is another side to it. What if by doing these things, we are actually trivializing the demonic rather than glorifying it? Could this be a way of mocking the evil one and his minions? Even so, could this not be unacceptable somewhat like bringing a railing accusation against the devil (see II Peter 2: 10-12)?

What of the extortion of treats by threat of tricks? I would really have a problem with this if it were the case. I am aware that some have taken this day as a license to commit all sorts of malicious acts in the name of “tricks.” For the most part, however, the refrain “trick or treat” might be translated, “Please give me the candy you were going to give me anyway even if I hadn’t asked.” I would guess this is about as harmless as the Christmas “threat” “Bring us some figgy pudding…we won’t go until we get some, so bring some out here.” In fact, I would be more fearful of the singing pudding bandits than the neighborhood candy gobblers.

Bobbing for apples while receiving a bad rap of late for being very unsanitary (but then again so is everything else according to the Lysol Generation), has been trashed by others for being some sort of prognostication on the subject of romance. In either case, it is much ado about nothing. Does anyone seriously take marital advice from an apple? Possibly these are the same ones who are guided by fortune cookies in their lives.

As to the religious implications of the holiday, I can only say that the main religion of Halloween is hedonism. Nobody I know worships the dead or anything else much but the Mighty White (pure Cane Sugar in all its lovely forms). It is an excuse to eat way too much delicious candy that has been given to the kids at someone else’s expense.

Yeah, I know…Druids, Saimhain, etc. But just because of its ancient connections does that mean that it is still the same thing? If so, we had better junk Valentine’s Day and change the names of all our days of the week because of their ancient meanings. Besides, who in the world demands these treats to offer to the dead or to whomever else they were supposed to have been offered?

I sympathize with the intent of those who wish to distribute tracts on Halloween; I am not sure about the method. First of all, the surest way to tick off a sugar-starved gobbler is to give them a tract with no candy (or for that matter any “healthy” treat that does not contain a healthy dose of sugar). Besides, how many of those tracts ever actually get read?

Then again, many of them contain some quite inane drivel about Halloween that would only aggravate people rather than draw them to the Lord. If one must offer tracts, be sure to sweeten them with a good treat (which means no artificial chocolate) and offer them the truth of the gospel instead of some mind-numbing sermon against some ancient unpronunceable, irrelevant and uninteresting festivals and deities.

Anyhow, happy Halloween, or Hallelujah or Harvest Festival. And don’t forget the day after is much more important as it is a remembrance of All Saints in the Western Christendom.

New Revelation=Old Heresy

Sometime back, I got a real shock. I have been a listener of gospel music for many years and one of the groups that I had listened to (and even seen in person) was the Hemphills. Then a letter comes from Joel Hemphill in which he is hawking his new book. Rather quickly I was dissuaded from purchasing his new tome when I discovered that in it he was contending that Jesus Christ was not God incarnate in any sense of the word. His “new revelation” is that Jesus was created in the womb of Mary and was the Son of God and a man full of God but was not God.

Anyone who knows anything at all about church history will realize that this “new revelation” is not new at all. In fact, another popular minister had the same enlightening experience as Hemphill. This minister’s name was Arius of Alexandria. His doctrine became so popular, in fact that it came close to completely subverting the Christian Church.

Arius’ revelation led eventually to the calling of an Ecumenical Council in 325 near Constantinople. Out of this Council came the Nicene Creed. While one cannot correctly say that this Council ended the controversy stirred by Arius, it certainly laid the foundation for ending his heresy.

Of course, I can hear the disgruntled hullabaloo of the Restorationist crowd decrying the Creed as being a “Catholic” invention imposed upon the pure, unsullied Apostolic faith. Only sheer and/or willful ignorance of the pre-Nicene period could allow someone to come to such an inane conclusion.

David Bercot, editor of A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, correctly sums up the available data: “the Nicene Creed is an encapsulation of what the pre-Nicene church believed about the Father and the Son.” (p. 113). A few quotes should suffice to prove this point:

Ignatius of Antioch

“For there are some vain talkers and deceivers, not Christians, but Christ-betrayers, bearing about the name of Christ in deceit, and “corrupting the word” of the Gospel; while they intermix the poison of their deceit with their persuasive talk,… [and] say that the Son is a mere man, and that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are but the same person, and that the creation is the work of God, not by Christ, but by some other strange power.” [ANF 1.68]

What did the venerable Antiochian bishop instruct Christians to do in regards to this kind of poisonous doctrine?

“Be on your guard, therefore, against such persons. And this will be the case with you if you are not puffed up, and continue in intimate union with Jesus Christ our God, and the bishop, and the enactments of the apostles.” [ANF 1. 68-69]

Justin Martyr

“For they who affirm that the Son is the Father, are proved neither to have become acquainted with the Father, nor to know that the Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God.” [ANF 1.184]

Hippolytus

“For the Son, being the power of God the Father, endued the temple of His own body again with life. Thus is He said to have been saved by the Father, as He stood in peril as a man, though by nature He is God, and Himself maintains the whole creation, visible and invisible, in a state of wellbeing.” [ANF 5.166]

Since there are hundreds of more examples, I will leave off with these few. Now, let us consider why Mr. Hemphill has made such an egregious doctrinal error considering all the evidence to the contrary.

And there is the crux of the problem: he has not considered all the evidence to the contrary. Rather, in his “wisdom” and “revelation” he has found sufficient warrant to disregard the Church and to interpret the Bible all on his own without regard to anyone before himself.

What gives him the right to disregard the wisdom of all the saints and Fathers of the Church? How can he consider his interpretations of the New Testament as more valid than the very church who gave us the New Testament?

What we have here is a classic case of Protestantism gone to seed. Since we have no creed but Christ and no authority above our own personal interpretation of God’s Word, we interpret ahistorically, without any reference to all that have gone before us. In our pride, we assume we know better what was said and what it meant than our predecessors. Once we disregard the authority of the Church under the direction of the Holy Spirit to interpret Scripture correctly, we are then left to our own “infallible” interpretations. May it never be!

Having learned nothing from history, such interpreters are bound to fall into the same pitfalls and errors that others have fallen into before now. The Church, led by the Holy Spirit, gave us a sure way to avoid such errors; when we ignore the Church, we leave ourselves open to any and all doctrines of demons. The new revelations are generally nothing but old heresies! If we would only hearken to the voice of history and the Holy Spirit in the Church, we could easily avoid the heresies and cling to the Truth.