Solo Scriptura - The Difference a Vowel Makes

Status
Not open for further replies.
Another thought, consider this:

There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. There are differences of ministries, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of activities, but it is the same God who works all in all. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all: for to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge through the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healings by the same Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another different kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills.

This teaches us that the Spirit distributes to each one individually for the profit of all.

If a person practicing true solo scriptura comes up with their own interpretation that knocks down centuries of belief with its novelty, how could the Spirit be in that? Is it of profit to all? Perhaps only as an example of what being a lone ranger does to the church.

However, if someone diligently studies and really understands the Scripture from their own use of it, they are bound by the Spirit to tell others what they have found. It is then up to the church to say if it is truly edifying based upon the same Spirit and what He has done in the church. We don't validate the truth. The truth is validated in us by the Spirit working. And yet we see that the Spirit doesn't work in us so that we can keep it to ourselves, but for the express purpose of building up the body of Christ.

That which does not build up, tears down. And therein lies the difference between solo and sola. Perhaps that is a litmus test of sorts. It isn't solo if the church (past and present) is in agreement.

In Christ,

KC
 
Another thought, consider this:

There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. There are differences of ministries, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of activities, but it is the same God who works all in all. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all: for to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge through the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healings by the same Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another different kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills.

This teaches us that the Spirit distributes to each one individually for the profit of all.

If a person practicing true solo scriptura comes up with their own interpretation that knocks down centuries of belief with its novelty, how could the Spirit be in that? Is it of profit to all? Perhaps only as an example of what being a lone ranger does to the church.

However, if someone diligently studies and really understands the Scripture from their own use of it, they are bound by the Spirit to tell others what they have found. It is then up to the church to say if it is truly edifying based upon the same Spirit and what He has done in the church. We don't validate the truth. The truth is validated in us by the Spirit working. And yet we see that the Spirit doesn't work in us so that we can keep it to ourselves, but for the express purpose of building up the body of Christ.

That which does not build up, tears down. And therein lies the difference between solo and sola. Perhaps that is a litmus test of sorts. It isn't solo if the church (past and present) is in agreement.

In Christ,

KC

That's what I was going to say too. :up:
 
If a person practicing true solo scriptura comes up with their own interpretation that knocks down centuries of belief with its novelty, how could the Spirit be in that? Is it of profit to all? Perhaps only as an example of what being a lone ranger does to the church.

Exactly. I worry about any "novel" idea of what Scripture teaches. If you study the Scripture and what you think it says disagrees with 2,000 years of church writings, you'd better reconsider what you think it says.
 
If a person practicing true solo scriptura comes up with their own interpretation that knocks down centuries of belief with its novelty, how could the Spirit be in that? Is it of profit to all? Perhaps only as an example of what being a lone ranger does to the church.

Exactly. I worry about any "novel" idea of what Scripture teaches. If you study the Scripture and what you think it says disagrees with 2,000 years of church writings, you'd better reconsider what you think it says.

Think of how Martin Luther must have felt when he discovered he disagreed with the churches teachings. I'm sure it was a scary position to be in.
 
If a person practicing true solo scriptura comes up with their own interpretation that knocks down centuries of belief with its novelty, how could the Spirit be in that? Is it of profit to all? Perhaps only as an example of what being a lone ranger does to the church.

Exactly. I worry about any "novel" idea of what Scripture teaches. If you study the Scripture and what you think it says disagrees with 2,000 years of church writings, you'd better reconsider what you think it says.

Think of how Martin Luther must have felt when he discovered he disagreed with the churches teachings. I'm sure it was a scary position to be in.

And rightly so!
 
Well, at least until he found out that he wasn't disagreeing with the Church's position. It was the present manifestation of the Church that was disagreeing.
 
Well, at least until he found out that he wasn't disagreeing with the Church's position. It was the present manifestation of the Church that was disagreeing.

True. He discovered that he had the support of the Church throughout history.
 
Well, at least until he found out that he wasn't disagreeing with the Church's position. It was the present manifestation of the Church that was disagreeing.
I'm sure the Church of Rome would say otherwise. They would also have said that the teachings of the RCC agreed with Scripture. They would have simply said that the problem was Luther being and individualist, and not bowing the authority of the true Church to interpret the Word. As Mathison said, it's all a matter of interpretation. Who was Luther to disagree with the Church's interpretation?
 
Just so.

Well, at least until he found out that he wasn't disagreeing with the Church's position. It was the present manifestation of the Church that was disagreeing.
I'm sure the Church of Rome would say otherwise. They would also have said that the teachings of the RCC agreed with Scripture. They would have simply said that the problem was Luther being and individualist, and not bowing the authority of the true Church to interpret the Word. As Mathison said, it's all a matter of interpretation. Who was Luther to disagree with the Church's interpretation?

There's no way to get around the fact when it's all boiled down, we each have to decide for ourselves how Scripture is to be interpreted. It's always amusing to read a convert to Rome wax eloquent regarding how he's Seen The Light and turned his back on "Protestant individualism", yet when pushed into a corner he is bound to acknowledge that his decision to go to Rome was itself an individual, personal decision, resulting from personal study, etc.

Unless one spends one life huddled in a closet, eyes scrunched shut, fingers in one's ears and humming loudly, one is stuck having to eventually make a personal, individual decision regarding what Scripture says, even if it's only to decide to stand pat and not vary from one's childhood faith.
 
There's no way to get around the fact when it's all boiled down, we each have to decide for ourselves how Scripture is to be interpreted. It's always amusing to read a convert to Rome wax eloquent regarding how he's Seen The Light and turned his back on "Protestant individualism", yet when pushed into a corner he is bound to acknowledge that his decision to go to Rome was itself an individual, personal decision, resulting from personal study, etc.

Unless one spends one life huddled in a closet, eyes scrunched shut, fingers in one's ears and humming loudly, one is stuck having to eventually make a personal, individual decision regarding what Scripture says, even if it's only to decide to stand pat and not vary from one's childhood faith.

It seems to me, Anne, that you are making a supposition here that has no warrant. We do not decide for ourselves how Scripture is to be interpreted any more than we decide what shape a tree half a world away will take. The Bible already means what it says long before we read it, before we decide on anything. Whatever we decide, our decision has nothing to do with what the Bible really says.

Instead, the question centres around how much of the Bible we can and will believe.

I can see how it is a problem if the Bible itself does not say anything until man has put his own interpretation upon it. But that is not the case. Its meaning is rooted in the One who wrote it, not in the readers. The Bible is a letter to us so that we may know, and in knowing also believe.

So the question is not of which interpretation a man may subject the Bible to, but whether he is willing to subject himself to the Bible's teachings. It is not an impossible question; it is rather that any other results in the impossible.
 
Well, at least until he found out that he wasn't disagreeing with the Church's position. It was the present manifestation of the Church that was disagreeing.
I'm sure the Church of Rome would say otherwise. They would also have said that the teachings of the RCC agreed with Scripture. They would have simply said that the problem was Luther being and individualist, and not bowing the authority of the true Church to interpret the Word. As Mathison said, it's all a matter of interpretation. Who was Luther to disagree with the Church's interpretation?

But it is a rather simple task to show that such a charge would be false. They were clearly unwilling to accept the challenge to prove their Scriptural integrity. A true Church would accept it easily and gladly, as Luther did also.
 
There's no way to get around the fact when it's all boiled down, we each have to decide for ourselves how Scripture is to be interpreted. It's always amusing to read a convert to Rome wax eloquent regarding how he's Seen The Light and turned his back on "Protestant individualism", yet when pushed into a corner he is bound to acknowledge that his decision to go to Rome was itself an individual, personal decision, resulting from personal study, etc.

Unless one spends one life huddled in a closet, eyes scrunched shut, fingers in one's ears and humming loudly, one is stuck having to eventually make a personal, individual decision regarding what Scripture says, even if it's only to decide to stand pat and not vary from one's childhood faith.
Actually, I think Anne is spot on. No man acts contrary to what he understands Scripture to be saying, and ultimately the churches into which we settle, and whose authority to which we submit, is never apart from what we ourselves understand to be the truth. I don't see how one can get around Salmon’s critique of the Roman critique on private judgment. Now, surely, this is no license to be novel in our interpretations of Holy Scripture, or for unreasonable rebellion against rightful ecclesiastical authority; I understand that. But what man truly acts contrary to his own understanding and conscience?

George Salmon: That submission to the Church of Rome rests ultimately on an act of private judgment is unmistakeably evident, when a Romanist tries (as he has no scruple in doing) to make a convert of you . . . What does he ask you to do but to decide that the religion of your fathers is wrong; that the teachers and instructors of your childhood were all wrong; that the clergy to whom you have looked up as best able to guide you are all mistaken . . . Well, if you come to the conclusion to reject all authority which you have reverenced from your childhood, is not that the most audacious exercise of private judgment? But suppose you come to the opposite conclusion, and decide on staying where you were, would not a Romanist have a right to laugh at you, if you said that you were not using your private judgment then; that to change one’s religion indeed is an act of private judgment, but that one who continues in his father’s religion is subject to none of the risks to which every exercise of private judgment is liable? Well, it is absurd to imagine that logic has one rule for Roman Catholics and another for us; that it would be an exercise of private judgment in them to change their religion, but none if they continue in what their religious teachers have told them. George Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church (London: Sherratt and Hughes, reprinted 1923), pp. 48-49.

DTK
 
Wow. Here I've been babbling on and it turns out George Salmon said what I was trying to say, only he said it decades ago and much, much better.

The point made in other posts in this thread cannot be stressed too much, which is that if one has found a really keen new interpretation of a verse or passage, one is pretty much guaranteed to be wrong.

(Bruce Wilkinson, call your office.)

If this is at the heart of "sola Scriptura", that one doesn't try to reinvent the doctrinal wheel by being wide open to all sorts of innovative, creative, fresh new doctrines that no one's ever heard of before, or at least no one that anyone with any sense wants to be associated with, that's great.

It's such innovation, creativity, and freshness that's landed us with feminism, "openness theology", Benny Hinn-style Let the bodies hit the floor "healings", Christian Science, "Paul was talking about Jewish identity badges", and so on and so on.

All the advocates of such innovations had to do was scrutinize church history and they'd have seen that these doctrinal "improvements" are without precedent.

Which should act as a big red flag.

When it comes to questions of limited v. open-ended atonement, mode of baptism, etc. then It seems to me sola Scriptura isn't much help, as there is a fair chunk of precedent for competing doctrinal positions. If there's Scripture that can be reasonably used to support the competing positions, and there's historical church precedent for the competing positions, then one is left to rely upon the much-maligned 'private judgment', aka: solo Scriptura.

Perhaps sola Scriptura is what protects the church as a whole, along with its individual members, from going totally off the rails, while solo Scriptura is used by those individual members to decide which of the acceptable doctrinal variations one will throw one's lot in with?
 
I detect in this thread there are two different concerns. One sees in the article something I don't see: That the article is denying the Christian the right to read and be persuaded by the Word and the testimony of the Spirit. The other concern, as I see it, is a criticism of the thought that Sola Scriptura begins and ends at that point. I need to read the critique of Mathison's article because I'm missing why the first point seems to be in dispute where I don't see that point being made.

At the close of 2 Timothy 3 and through 2 Timothy 4, Paul talks about the Word's sufficiency to make men wise unto salvation but then charges Timothy, an elder, with seeing to it that he is an instrument to the Word's ministry. Elsewhere, members of Churches are called to submit to their Elders and to make their work joyful as those that must give account.

I think some are making the mistake of assuming that having a serious view of this submission amounts to leaving your private interpretation completely at the door. I don't.

I believe kceaster hit the nail on the head as to the goal. I don't agree that private interpretation is the ultimate goal of the Church but the unity of the faith is. We ought not be satisfied with the fact that we're merely convinced of the Word but labor to bring all in the Church to a mature man. We also ought to recognize that there are those around us, who we have demonstrated wisdom and Godliness, that we ought to heed in their understanding of the Scriptures and not presume our own interpretations to be wiser than they are.

Ultimately, the Church's authority stands or falls where they accurately interpret the Word and no man should uncritically listen to his elders. Yet, the issue today is that most Churches suffer from a lack of concern among individuals that there are differing levels of maturity and that our responsibility to our brethren is to participate in the building up of the Body. Missing worship on Sundays is seen as something primarily affecting me as oppposed to affecting both me and the body. Churches are evaluated, in large measure, on what they offer in terms of programs and not on what they offer in terms of solid teaching.

I'm not shy about standing against an overstatement of Church authority. I thought the article had done a good job of avoiding that pitfall while offering a perspective on authority that pointed to this unifying role and challenged modern men to think beyond themselves a little bit. As I stated, I'll read the review and try to find out what this undercurrent is caused by because I'm missing the force from the article that is causing others to see in it a denial of conscience.
 
There's no way to get around the fact when it's all boiled down, we each have to decide for ourselves how Scripture is to be interpreted. It's always amusing to read a convert to Rome wax eloquent regarding how he's Seen The Light and turned his back on "Protestant individualism", yet when pushed into a corner he is bound to acknowledge that his decision to go to Rome was itself an individual, personal decision, resulting from personal study, etc.

Unless one spends one life huddled in a closet, eyes scrunched shut, fingers in one's ears and humming loudly, one is stuck having to eventually make a personal, individual decision regarding what Scripture says, even if it's only to decide to stand pat and not vary from one's childhood faith.

This may be true but one does not come to the conclusions that are correct without outside sources. No one just picks up the Bible and understands it on their own understanding and capacity to reason it out. And no one can fully understand it without the help of others or without the gifts of pastors teachers and books that help to explain it. We all need a Stephen in our lives just as the Ethiopian needed him also. To say you don't need these things is Solo Scriptura and not Sola Scriptura.

(Act 8:30) And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?

(Act 8:31) And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.


I depend regularly upon other Proffessors and pastors to help me with understanding the Greek and historical significance of things spoken of in the texts.

Here is a very simple example of what I mean.

(Pro 22:28) Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set.

The first time I read this with my own understanding I thought it had something to do with a landmark, like a monument, as in one of the twelve rocks set up on the side of the Jordan River as a memorial that the Lord caused them to pass over into the Promised land.

(Jos 4:6) That this may be a sign among you, that when your children ask their fathers in time to come, saying, What mean ye by these stones?


But that is not the case. Remove not the ancient landmarks has to do with Property markers. I learned this through other materials. In other words I couldn't use the Bible here to interpret the Bible as I assumed I was doing in the first place by equating the memorial stones to the landmarks. I had to learn some good form. Sola Scriptura.

That is why we hold to sola sciptura instead of Solo scriptura.

Pax,
Randy
 
I hadn't brought that up, but now both Pastor Winzer and you have done so; what perplexes me is that I'd gotten the impression over the years that such a "lone ranger" mentality is regarded as the logical end result of the error of "solo Scriptura", rather than the error itself.

Solo Scriptura, like any error, can be sometimes less sometimes more dangerous. It is less dangerous when the person submits to the ordained means of grace. More dangerous when the person lives above the means. But either way there are problems. Sometimes those problems are the result of not thinking about things properly. At other times they are the result of deep seated pride and independency. Let's take the more benign, the fact that the person hasn't thought about things properly. First, how did the person get the Bible? The oracles of God are committed to the church. Second, how did the Bible find its way into their language? Third, whence did the key thoughts arise which set the person thinking in terms of the fundamental message of the Bible? These are important points to think about. The failure to accredit the right place to human helps can very easily lead a person into fanaticism, and ultimately undermine their Christian faith, which God has ordained to be nourished and built up in union with other believers.
 
Miss Anne...

There's no way to get around the fact when it's all boiled down, we each have to decide for ourselves how Scripture is to be interpreted. It's always amusing to read a convert to Rome wax eloquent regarding how he's Seen The Light and turned his back on "Protestant individualism", yet when pushed into a corner he is bound to acknowledge that his decision to go to Rome was itself an individual, personal decision, resulting from personal study, etc.

Unless one spends one life huddled in a closet, eyes scrunched shut, fingers in one's ears and humming loudly, one is stuck having to eventually make a personal, individual decision regarding what Scripture says, even if it's only to decide to stand pat and not vary from one's childhood faith.

I won't dare deny the responsibility each of us has of our choices, but what I've said before (and it is not my saying but Christ's) is completely true: The Spirit will guide us. None of us will happen on the concept of unlimited atonement in the Scriptures. It's right there in front of us, but we will never understand it. The most brilliant minds in the world cannot glean truth from the Bible. NEVER.

But with God, all things are possible. With the Spirit to guide, we can now see glimpses of spiritual truth through spiritual eyes. How is this done? The Spirit who indwells the regenerated man, interprets it for us, helping us discern spiritual things. Therefore, although it seems we decide or judge on our own, it is not due to us that a correct judgment is made. And I think you'll agree that the one who goes back to Rome has been enticed by the Angel of Light, the Prince of this world. It is not the Holy Spirit who guides one back to Rome, but we know that it is the Holy Spirit who guides one to the truth.

So do we judge and come to our own concensus? I'm uncomfortable with saying yes to that. It would be better to say that we come to the knowledge of the truth by the grace of God, not what we have done. If I judge aright, it is only because the Ever-Living One helps me to that judgment. I'm pretty sure you'll agree with that, but I just wanted to clarify it.

In Christ,

KC
 
The article says a few things that are important to our time. It is not enough, though. There's more of a problem here than this. I do not see, for instance, that there are some standing on sola Scriptura who are actually reinventing history itself, the end result being exactly the same as "solo' Scriptura".

I think that what I've seen the most of is a taking advantage of people's ignorance in various areas. This gives the proponent of some new idea a chance to paint things the colours he likes, thus presenting the views he's advocating in a context that appears clearly superior. It even seems like the only right thing to believe. Such a one couches his arguments in historical accounts, in quotes from the Church fathers, in arguments that seem to cover the whole spectrum, and even as "sola Scriptura". But in reality they're carefully crafted to take advantage of the ignorance of ordinary people and even of scholars.

In such a case the "solo" part is not so much individualist but instead a herd mentality. People get caught up in the paradigms, to the point where the true traditionalist, the true historicist, the true doctrinaire, is the one who's out of it, who doesn't know what he's talking about.

There's nothing like a solid catechism training when one is young to protect him from the various teachings that have all the appearance of orthodoxy but are not. I am suggesting that a solid catechism training results in these early lessons becoming the beginning and base of all his life-long growth in the faith. And as he understands more he may also test this basis again and again. He stands in the tradition of the Church, and yets stands firm in his own faith.
 
Civbert;296329[FONT=Palatino Linotype said:
There's no way to get around the fact when it's all boiled down, we each have to decide for ourselves how Scripture is to be interpreted. [/FONT]It's always amusing to read a convert to Rome wax eloquent regarding how he's Seen The Light and turned his back on "Protestant individualism", yet when pushed into a corner he is bound to acknowledge that his decision to go to Rome was itself an individual, personal decision, resulting from personal study, etc.

Unless one spends one life huddled in a closet, eyes scrunched shut, fingers in one's ears and humming loudly, one is stuck having to eventually make a personal, individual decision regarding what Scripture says, even if it's only to decide to stand pat and not vary from one's childhood faith.
I agree that this is ironic. The convert wants to leave the uncertainty of individualism, but his most important decision is still an individual decision (deciding which church, or set of interpretations, is right).
 
The irony with the RC, of course, is that Churches don't really exercise any oversight over their parishioners. They pretty much leave everybody to believe whatever they like or do whatever they like (unless a priest or nun decides to marry).

Both my brothers have gotten divorced and their ex wives and they both still attend Church without anybody having stated a single word to them. Of course, my brother got re-married so he's barred from communion unless he gets an annulment. But that's the only time they'll talk to him about it.

The authority is so uninvolved and detached.

Biblical leadership and body life is much more sacrificial and caring. It loves the sheep enough to actually confront people with their sin.

The greatest irony is that the Roman Catholic Church, though most "technically" authoritarian in its teaching allows the greatest liberty to "do what is right in your own eyes" because nobody ever checks up on you as long as you "punch the ticket" and go to mass every week and attend on all the holy days.
 
The irony with the RC, of course, is that Churches don't really exercise any oversight over their parishioners. They pretty much leave everybody to believe whatever they like or do whatever they like (unless a priest or nun decides to marry).

Both my brothers have gotten divorced and their ex wives and they both still attend Church without anybody having stated a single word to them. Of course, my brother got re-married so he's barred from communion unless he gets an annulment. But that's the only time they'll talk to him about it.

The authority is so uninvolved and detached.

Biblical leadership and body life is much more sacrificial and caring. It loves the sheep enough to actually confront people with their sin.

The greatest irony is that the Roman Catholic Church, though most "technically" authoritarian in its teaching allows the greatest liberty to "do what is right in your own eyes" because nobody ever checks up on you as long as you "punch the ticket" and go to mass every week and attend on all the holy days.

I have noticed this too. Most Catholics I meet in person are indistinguishable from secular counterparts. The first state to have its Supreme Court approve of homosexual marriage was Mass, which is half Catholic. There was little outcry from their Catholic population and I believe many if not all of the justices were Catholic. Most priests certainly do not follow RC canon law:
Can. 529 §1 So that he may fulfil his office of pastor diligently, the parish priest is to strive to know the faithful entrusted to his care. He is therefore to visit their families, sharing in their cares and anxieties and, in a special way, their sorrows, comforting them in the Lord. If in certain matters they are found wanting, he is prudently to correct them . . .
 
I detect in this thread there are two different concerns. One sees in the article something I don't see: That the article is denying the Christian the right to read and be persuaded by the Word and the testimony of the Spirit. The other concern, as I see it, is a criticism of the thought that Sola Scriptura begins and ends at that point. I need to read the critique of Mathison's article because I'm missing why the first point seems to be in dispute where I don't see that point being made.
You are right. People have trouble reconciling a duty to the scriptures and a duty to the church. The fear is that these duties are either inconsistent or that duty to the church functionally replaces duty to the scriptures. I don't see a problem. This situation is analagous to parental authority. Children have a duty to accept and obey the doctrinal and religious teachings of their parents (see, e.g. Prov. 1:8). Yet they also have a duty to obey the scriptures. These duties are no more inconsistent than having duties toward both church and scripture.

I think part of the problem is that people don't believe that the church has real authority.
 
I detect in this thread there are two different concerns. One sees in the article something I don't see: That the article is denying the Christian the right to read and be persuaded by the Word and the testimony of the Spirit. The other concern, as I see it, is a criticism of the thought that Sola Scriptura begins and ends at that point. I need to read the critique of Mathison's article because I'm missing why the first point seems to be in dispute where I don't see that point being made.
You are right. People have trouble reconciling a duty to the scriptures and a duty to the church. The fear is that these duties are either inconsistent or that duty to the church functionally replaces duty to the scriptures. I don't see a problem. This situation is analagous to parental authority. Children have a duty to accept and obey the doctrinal and religious teachings of their parents (see, e.g. Prov. 1:8). Yet they also have a duty to obey the scriptures. These duties are no more inconsistent than having duties toward both church and scripture.

I think part of the problem is that people don't believe that the church has real authority.

I think this pretty well sums it up. Are we under the authority of Scripture? Yes. Are we under the authority of the Church? Yes. The two are not mutually exclusive. However, I can understand how difficult it is to identify where the two meet. You could say that it is similar to predestination and human responsibility. Some people are uncomfortable when any of their theology is not compartmentalized in some way so they fight to the death to deny one side or the other. :deadhorse:
 
I detect in this thread there are two different concerns. One sees in the article something I don't see: That the article is denying the Christian the right to read and be persuaded by the Word and the testimony of the Spirit. The other concern, as I see it, is a criticism of the thought that Sola Scriptura begins and ends at that point. I need to read the critique of Mathison's article because I'm missing why the first point seems to be in dispute where I don't see that point being made.
You are right. People have trouble reconciling a duty to the scriptures and a duty to the church. The fear is that these duties are either inconsistent or that duty to the church functionally replaces duty to the scriptures. I don't see a problem. This situation is analagous to parental authority. Children have a duty to accept and obey the doctrinal and religious teachings of their parents (see, e.g. Prov. 1:8). Yet they also have a duty to obey the scriptures. These duties are no more inconsistent than having duties toward both church and scripture.

I think part of the problem is that people don't believe that the church has real authority.

And still I wonder...very seriously, and desiring to understand...how anyone can ever move from one church/denomination to another.

If one's church has real authority over one's doctrinal beliefs, how can it be right to reject one's church's teachings in favor of another church's?

I wouldn't be surprised if there's someone here who was raised in the PCUSA or ECUSA, but have shaken the dust of those abysmal denominations (if such they can be legitimately called, and I have my doubts) off their feet.

If Peter Presbyterian's reading of Scripture leads him to think the PCUSA's gone doctrinally strange, properly takes his worries to the pastor, but the pastor assures him he's the one misreading Scripture and the PCUSA's authorities are dead on target and he should respect them, I'm not seeing - based upon Scott and Rich's posts - how Peter could do other than what his pastor advises.

This has given me fits for years now, trying to square submitting to one's chosen church's authority with being on guard against inaccurate, even heterodox, teaching coming from that church.

We submit until we disagree with them regarding what Scripture says? In which case all bets are off, and we're going to go with our own interpretation, especially if it's been around since Hector was a pup (say, a more-than-memorial view of the Lord's Supper)?

Submitting when we agree isn't actually submitting at all. Submission only comes into play when we say this while our legitimate authority says that.

How do we know when we should tell our legitimate ecclesiastical authorities "forget it, I'm leaving"?
 
When the minority of a body become unsound, there is no remedy but excision. When the majority become unsound, there is no remedy but secession. Error desires nothing, demands nothing but toleration. It is sure of ultimate success if let alone. Its advocates, to prevent alarm, maintain that the differences are but slight, perhaps merely verbal, or at most philosophical, and frown at suspicion and inquiry as calculated to disturb the peace of the church... Error is more congenial than truth; the love of it is the normal state, and its power of assimilation in this world is greater than that of truth. The gospel wins its way, and maintains its advantages against the current. Error floats with it, and gains its destination without lifting an oar. Truth in this world is an exotic. Error is indigenous. The former cannot live but by constant protection; the latter thrives without it. Error, therefore, needs nothing but toleration in any communion, for its spread and success. The only successful preventative is excision or secession. To this rule there can be found no exception in the history of the past.

Lewis Cheeseman, Differences between Old and New School Presbyterians. (Rochester, NY. Erastus Darrow, 1848), p. 22.
 
"When the minority of a body become unsound, there is no remedy but excision. When the majority become unsound, there is no remedy but secession."

Who determines what's sound and unsound? Isn't that basically the axis around which the current discussion revolves? Is an individual Christian permitted to decide for himself that there's error afoot in his church, or should he submit to his legitimate ecclesiastical authority when it assures him everything's fine?

To my way of thinking, he should be a Berean, searching the Scriptures first, then move on to church history to make sure what he's thinking is traditional doctrine is, in fact, traditional.

If what he's now considering to be error is similarly traditional, even though different from what he believes, he should probably just pipe down. If his church is orthodox in all other respects, and the "error" is within acceptable boundaries (credobaptism v. paedobaptism, for example, barring outright aberrations such as anabaptism or baptismal regeneration; or indefinite v. definite redemption; or varying theories of eschatology ), it's most prudent to stay where he is.

If the error is more serious, especially if it's some newfangled nonsense such as feminism or openness theology or the NPP, then it's time to find a new church home. (Which explains why I'm still at Christ Chapel. It's gone a bit peculiar, but not enough to warrant giving it the ol' heave-ho.)

Still, when it comes right down to it, he's the one making the final decision.
 
Anne,

A brother has been kind enough to interact with me offline and he brought a perspective to the work since I hadn't read the book itself or the critiques of it.

One of the things that kceaster has noted in this thread and both the historic Church and especially the Reformers emphasized is the perspicuity of the Scriptures. It's not as if a man in the pew has an excuse when he sees a homosexual priest ordained to think: "Well the Church says it, that settles it."

I would like to think that God prevents all division by leading all his elect into the same physical Church but that doesn't happen. There is a sense, however, that the elect are kept from bending the knee to Baal and understand the Truth when they see it.

I would caution men, of course, that this perspective requires a great deal of humility. Too many who "see the Truth" take the attitude that others are not worth their time. There may be an individual Church that is mixed with error that is your only place to worship. Men can decide they'll stay home, then, because those folks aren't good enough for him to help. He may, alternatively decide to labor and pray to help.

In a town with lots of choices, I think it takes prayer and humility to try to ensure that your Church is confessing the Scriptures but the attitude ought to be balanced between a concern for the Truth as you understand it with a healthy desire to serve the Body.

Perspectives about error are much different in the same body from the people that are concerned about Truth for their personal benefit than those who are concerned about Truth for the benefit of the entire Body of Christ.
 
And still I wonder...very seriously, and desiring to understand...how anyone can ever move from one church/denomination to another.

If one's church has real authority over one's doctrinal beliefs, how can it be right to reject one's church's teachings in favor of another church's?

I wouldn't be surprised if there's someone here who was raised in the PCUSA or ECUSA, but have shaken the dust of those abysmal denominations (if such they can be legitimately called, and I have my doubts) off their feet.

If Peter Presbyterian's reading of Scripture leads him to think the PCUSA's gone doctrinally strange, properly takes his worries to the pastor, but the pastor assures him he's the one misreading Scripture and the PCUSA's authorities are dead on target and he should respect them, I'm not seeing - based upon Scott and Rich's posts - how Peter could do other than what his pastor advises.

This has given me fits for years now, trying to square submitting to one's chosen church's authority with being on guard against inaccurate, even heterodox, teaching coming from that church.

We submit until we disagree with them regarding what Scripture says? In which case all bets are off, and we're going to go with our own interpretation, especially if it's been around since Hector was a pup (say, a more-than-memorial view of the Lord's Supper)?

Submitting when we agree isn't actually submitting at all. Submission only comes into play when we say this while our legitimate authority says that.

How do we know when we should tell our legitimate ecclesiastical authorities "forget it, I'm leaving"?

Those are all legitimate questions and hard to answer. I would note that they are not limited to church authority, though. They apply to disagreement with any authority. A child has a duty to obey his parents and accept their teachings. Yet there are times when a the parent is seriously wrong and the child should disobey. We have a general duty to obey the government. Yet there are times when it is legitimate to disobey. When does this happen? The answers are not clear and disobedience is fraught with peril. Yet at times it is permissible.

In any event, I think we have to accept a certain amount of uncertainty because the denominational splintering we have inherited is not biblical. The Bible does not tell us how to function in that situation. So we have to use Christian prudence.

Scott
 
Anne,
One of the things that kceaster has noted in this thread and both the historic Church and especially the Reformers emphasized is the perspicuity of the Scriptures. It's not as if a man in the pew has an excuse when he sees a homosexual priest ordained to think: "Well the Church says it, that settles it."
They also used the machinery of the church and government to forcibly suppress a lot of views of scripture that many of us would say are unclear. Church government is one. We have wonderful Baptist brethern on the board. We also have presbyterians, Anglicans, and others. The reformers supported an established church and at times did not permit (or argued that the government should not permit) contradictory interpretations of church government to be practiced. Presumably, they believed that church government was clear enough to warrant supressing contradictory ideas. There are other things like that.

Also, numerous important things are not clear. As KCEaster noted, one of those things was whether Isa. 53 applies to Christ (from Acts 8). The Eunuch reading that passage said that he could not even figure out if the prophet was speaking of himself or someone else. He said he could not understand apart from having a teacher. It was that unclear. Even Peter complained about Paul's writings being hard: "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things: in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." 2 Peter 3:16. This passage is cited by the WCF for the position that some parts of scipture are unclear.

The WCF's statement about perspicuity is fairly limited in scope:
VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all:[15] yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.[
Basically, it says that the things necessary to be believed for salvation are clear enough to be understood by due use of ordinary means. From the common evangelical perspective (including most modern reformed), this is a small amount of information. For example, the PCA's church covenant simply requires someone to who wants to join to acknowledge that he is a sinner, rests on Christ alone for salvation, and promises to live as a follower of Christ. That leaves a lot of other stuff open. IN any event, a lot of good people debate a lot of important issues.

I (and I think most of us here are) am thankful for the work of the universal church in resolving issues of the Trinity, synods and assemblies of the Reformation for establishing wonderful confessions, and my own denomination (the PCA) for dealing with issues like 6 day creation, the federal vision, exclusive psalmody and the like.

Scott
 
I think this excerpt from the WCF is helpful:
III. It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same; which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in His Word.
I think solo sciptura people would disagree with the bolded statement, if not the whole paragraph. The main issue is: do synods have real power or not?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top