Josiah Concept Ministries

My good friend Caleb posted an interesting but profoundly misguided entry on his MySpace Blog.  In this entry, Caleb has formally rejected all religious doctrine in favor of sola scriptura.  This is a dangerous view to hold.  People who adhere to extremist views of sola scriptura run the danger of sinking into heresy without realizing it.  Sola scriptura was never framed with the idea of ignoring all of church history or her doctrine.

So what is sola scriptura, then?  Sola scriptura is Latin for “by Scripture alone.”  It is the theological position that the Bible alone is sufficient to establish faith and morals and correct doctrine.  The Roman Catholic position has always been sola verbum Dei, which means “by the Word of God alone.”  Catholics consider Sacred Tradition on par with Scripture, which is rejected by the Protestant Reformers.  Said Martin Luther:

Unless I am convinced by sacred Scripture or by evident reason - I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is held captive by the word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to act against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand! I can do no other. God help me! Amen.

Notice that Luther is “held captive by the word of God.”  It is only God who can hold a person like this.  Only God’s Word holds that power to convict a person.  Sacred Tradition cannot do this.  Church councils cannot do this.  Only God can do this through the power and force of His words in Scripture.

But, Christian apologist James White notes:

[Sola scriptura] does not mean that the Reformers rejected everything that every Christian in earlier ages has said: indeed, they often cited the early Christians as supporters of their own positions. However, they recognized that those earlier believers were not inspired, were not inerrant, and, in fact, quite often made errors in their judgments and beliefs, just as people do today. The only infallible rule of faith, they argued, is found in the pages of Holy Writ.

Doctrine is extremely important.  Doctrine defines what we believe as Christians.  So why is there not unity in doctrine?  Why the divisions? Theologian C. Michael Patton argues:

. . . it may actually be God’s sovereignty that brings about division over the doctrine of God’s sovereignty! This does not mean that wrong belief is always justified. Neither does it mean that we need to be content with agnosticism or lessen our conviction about any doctrinal issue. To the contrary. It means that we engage in it more vigorously than we did before, being confident that God has a dignifying reason for conflict resulting from diversity. (source)

Patton concludes:

While we may believe that our opinion is correct (and it may be), from a certain perspective we can appreciate dissension in values, beliefs, and practices. Understanding diversity can often cause us to see that the answer to many issues is going to be more of a both/and rather than an either/or. We could both be right and we could both be wrong.

In the end, if God is in control then the answer to my question is relatively simple. Why doesn’t everyone agree with me? Because it is not God’s will for them to. It is to His glory. Why? His will is better accomplished through diversity. In this I think we can learn to celebrate diversity without yielding to the postmodern matrix of relativism or apathy. (source)

My friend Caleb felt weakened in his faith by doctrinal disputes with several believers and some nonbelievers.  He has adopted an extremist view of sola scriptura, which Wikipedia calls solo, and has formally rejected all doctrine as flawed and man-made.  By extension, he is rejecting what all Christian thinkers before him have said.  This is a dangerous and lonely place to be.  It is also self-refuting.

Caleb actually has adopted the position that many Roman Catholics think we that hold sola scriptura have, that each individual is free to read Scripture and come to his own conclusions.  This is not at all what sola scriptura teaches.  Dr. James White, in his book The Roman Catholic Controversy, gives a very good definition of sola scriptura.  More importantly, Dr. White explains what sola scriptura is not:

1. First and foremost, sola scriptura is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not a scientific textbook, a manual on governmental procedures, or a catalog of automobile engine parts. The Bible does not claim to give us every bit of knowledge that we could ever obtain.
2. Sola scriptura is not a claim that the Bible is an exhaustive catalog of all religious knowledge. The Bible itself asserts that it is not exhaustive in detail (John 21:25). It is obvious that the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to be sufficient as our source of divine truth.
3. Sola scriptura is not a denial of the authority of the Church to teach God’s truth.
4. Sola scriptura is not a denial that the Word of God has, at times, been spoken. Rather, it refers to the Scriptures as serving the Church as God’s final and full revelation.
5. Sola scriptura does not entail the rejection of every kind or form of Church “tradition.” There are some traditions that are God-honoring and useful in the Church. Sola scriptura simply means that any tradition, no matter how ancient or venerable it might seem to us, must be tested by a higher authority, and that authority is the Bible.
6. Sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.

Dr. White says that Sola scriptura is:

1. The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fidei, the infallible rule of faith for the Church.
2. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture, and in no other source. This is not to say that the necessary beliefs of the faith could not be summarized in a shorter form. However, there is no necessary belief, doctrine, or dogma absolutely required of a person for entrance into the kingdom of heaven that is not found in the pages of Scripture.
3. That which is not found in the Scripture  either directly or by necessary implication  is not binding upon the Christian.
4. Scripture reveals those things necessary for salvation (2 Tim. 3:14-17).
5. All traditions are subject to the higher authority of Scripture (Matt. 15:1-9). There can be no understanding of the sufficiency of Scripture apart from an understanding of the true origin and the resultant nature of Scripture. The Reformers had the highest view of the Bible, and therefore had a solid foundation on which to stand in defending the sufficiency of the Scriptures.

I have given considerable attention to a definition of sola scriptura, considering both what it is and what it is not.  I will now examine Caleb’s article point-by-point to see why it is so dangerous to hold the views that he does.

“I don’t want to be taught what C.S. Lewis or Max Lucado said when I go to church.”  From this I conclude as I did above that Caleb has rejected all Christian thinkers from the past.

As we are imperfect, so the doctrine that we draw up is also imperfect.  With this sentiment I agree.  In fact, I believe that it is to be expected.  Caleb believes that this is Satan using our faith against us.  I agree with Patton, however, that doctrinal disputes are to the glory of God.  How, I ask, are we to contend for our faith as the apostle Peter commands us if we cannot give a cogent definition of what that faith even is?  This is where doctrine comes into play, and successfully defending that doctrine, as Patton notes, makes our faith stronger.

Next, Caleb uses a two-pronged argument to conclude that Christians cannot know what Scripture actually says.  His first prong attacks inspiration, the second attacks translation.  His first prong is a deadly one, and it strikes at the heart of the very idea he is promoting–sola scriptura (even if his version has no basis in historical Protestantism).  The second prong I generally agree with; no English translation of the Bible is perfect.

It is Caleb’s first prong that we should consider.  It is sad to note that apostates and nonbelievers promote this idea all the time: God inspired, but since He didn’t dictate or write it Himself, what if the people who did write got it wrong?  It is my firm belief that they did not get it wrong, but why I believe that is best left for another article.  For now, I will expose the self-refuting nature of Caleb’s position of sola scriptura.  If, indeed, we cannot know for certain what Scripture intended to say in the first place, how are we to derive any truth from it whatsoever?

The only way is to do as the atheists accuse us of doing anyway: cherry-pick what we believe to be the truth and completely discard the remainder.  Sorry, Caleb, this position is not a good prospect for you that holds to your extremist sola scriptura: either Scripture is true, or Scripture is not true.  Introducing shades of gray like this cast serious doubt on any of it being true.  Which means that it isn’t true.  Which means that you are holding in your hands a book as fallible as C.S. Lewis or Max Lucado, two men you deride above.

Caleb seems to correct himself in the next section, saying that the Bible gives us all we need.  On this we agree–the Bible is sufficient for all knowledge of salvation.  But it is far from the only way in which God has revealed Himself to man.

Why is this position so dangerous to hold?  To divorce oneself from the teachings of the church can create a serious problem.  Let’s look at an extreme example.  Let’s say that, Bill, a devout Christian, in his solo Bible study, happens upon this passage:

In one of the cities the LORD your God is giving you, there may be a man or woman among you who is doing what the LORD considers evil. This person may be disregarding the conditions of the LORD’S promise by worshiping and bowing down to other gods, the sun, the moon, or the whole army of heaven. I have forbidden this. When you are told about it, investigate it thoroughly. If it’s true and it can be proven that this disgusting thing has been done in Israel, then bring the man or woman who did this evil thing to the gates of your city, and stone that person to death.  (Deut 17:2-5)

Bill reads this to mean that Christians are commanded to kill unbelievers.  So Bill calls Ted, his atheist friend, and has Ted meet him somewhere in the outskirts of the city.  Bill then stones Ted to death, believing that he has followed the commands of God.  Bill makes it his mission to hunt down atheists and kill them wherever they stand, and even after his arrest and conviction, Bill declares that he was only following the Bible’s clear command to kill unbelievers.
Has Bill followed the commands of the Lord, or has he done something wrong?

Well, if Bill were to have consulted the writings on this website, he may have discovered this:

Deuteronomy is a lousy book to use for a proof text of anything.  In context, this book is a suzerainty treaty between God and the nation of Israel, a nation that has since been destroyed.  This means that the terms of the contract–especially the enforcement clauses–are no longer binding on anyone.  Paul says of the law of Moses, “. . . the letter kills, but the Spirit brings life” (2 Cor 3:6).  Since the law is no longer binding on us, we should look at why that rule was given and follow the reasoning behind it rather than rely on the actual words of the law.

The Bible is our written source book; by which we can objectively check how God reacts to certain actions or behaviors.  The penalties ascribed show that what we think of as minor sins, God actually views as a very big deal.  The law is really written in our hearts (cf. Ps 40:8 and Jer 31:33).  We need Christ, not the law (cf. Gal 3:24-26).

But I want everyone to notice something: VJack is wrong about the interpretation of this verse.  Note that it says “there may be a man or woman among you,” that is, a Jew!  This verse is only speaking of Jews, not the Gentiles.  VJack is seriously misrepresenting what the Bible says regarding in this matter.  I’ll close with the words of Christ:

You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,  so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. (Mat 5:43-45)

By rejecting the Christian thinkers of ages past and present, Bill (in this example) committed a gross sin.  He read something, interpreted it his way, and since he doesn’t consult anyone except himself, he had no way to know that his interpretation was completely wrong.   I’m not saying that Caleb is wrong on any specific points now, but the chance for him to be wrong is multiplied by the fact that he refuses to accept any specific doctrines.

Worse, Caleb is ignoring the clear teaching of Scripture about the church.  As White pointed out, sola scriptura is not the rejection of the authority of the church.  Scripture repeatedly affirms the teaching authority of the church (e.g. 1 Tim 3:15).  Anyone would do well to check the synods and councils of the church’s past history.  Knowing the ancient creeds and confessions of the church are also helpful.  The writings of the church fathers are also very important.

Opening Scripture up to one’s own interpretation without knowing (or even desiring) the historical Christian interpretation is the breeding ground for heresy.