Send post as PDF to

The Credo House of Theology is well on the way. Get the latest updates here.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

1. I found this study interesting considering much talk about how the present postmodern generation tends to be less committed than previous generations.

Members of the Millennial generation are just as likely to open their wallets to charities as those born decades earlier . . . 

[Study] showed that young donors are as generous as those from older generations.

“We thought we would see some real differences, but giving across generations is not all that different,” says Edith Falk, chair and CEO of Chicago-based fundraising consultancy Campbell & Co.

. . . All other factors being equal, the study showed, the average giving level of Millennials is about the same as that of other generations.

2. Six Prayers God Always Answers (*Results May Vary) is a new book from Tyndale that explores some of the mysteries of prayer in a winsome and helpful way. In a chapter entitled “Prayers God Rarely Answers” the authors Mark Harringshaw and Jennifer Schuchmann say “Some questions get us in too deep, dredging up bottom filth that we never bargined for. Some questions are too big. Why is one of them.”

3. Theology Unplugged and Converse with Scholars. As we are anticipating some major “upgrades” here at Reclaiming the Mind, both TUP and CWS have been put on hold. Expect to continue to see them, but they will be more spuratic until the end of the Summer.

4. Pray for Ed Komoszewski. As you know, Ed has been such an important part of this ministry for some time now. He is also a dear friend. He has some serious health problems and is in need of prayer. As is the case whenever problems like this arise, there are many financial difficulties that he and his family are enduring. Please pray for this as well. I don’t want to share too many details here on the blog, but those of you who desire more details and would like to help, please let me know though email.

5. Bob Practico list the Top Ten Theological Scams.

6. Darth Vader Golfing:

7. Six reasons why Batman could take Yoda

1. Batman is taller.
2. Batman is smarter.
3. Batman would already know how to reverse the effect of the force.
4. The dark side would be mistaken for the Dark Knight and Yoda would compromise the code.
5. Yoda would simply be too scared to fight.
6. The anti-force alarm in the Batbelt.

8. Sproul on the difference between salvation and justification (love it!)

9. Was Noah’s flood local, global, parable, myth, or legend? What a conversation going on here.

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

Join Michael Patton, Rhome Dyck, and Greg Cromartie as they discuss the problem of the unforgivable sin.

Send post as PDF to

 

 Theology Unplugged - Problem Passages 4 - The Unforgivable Sin [28:07m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

I sat down with a young lady a couple of weeks ago and had a conversation. This was a conversation about faith—her faith. Better put, this was a conversation about a faith that once was and is no more. She was a very interesting and bright lady—inquisitive, well-read, and suspicious. She began by telling me that she was a Christian (past tense) and had since left the faith. Christ was once a part of her confession, but, as she recounted to me, after a long voyage of not finding sufficient answers for her doubts, she believes that she had no choice but to follow her own integrity and renounce Christ all together. I asked her what her problems were and she became very emotional. It was like I represented Christianity and she was ready to take it all out on me.

Ignorance. Pity. Shame. These are all good descriptions of what she thought of Christianity. But the primary description that I felt coming from here was “betrayal.” She had been betrayed by the Church because they duped her into a belief not unlike that of the tooth fairy. When she discovered this betrayal, no one had a valid answer or excuse. So she left. She is now an unbeliever—a soon-to-be evangelistic unbeliever.

One fascination, obsession, and focus (neurotic pulse?) I have in my life and ministry is with regard to those, like this young lady, who leave the faith. You may have noticed this. I have over a dozen books giving autobiographical sketches of those who once proclaimed to be Christian and are now evangelistic atheists, agnostics, or skeptics, with their goal to convert or, rather, unconvert others. I have been in contact with many people who either have already left or are on the verge of leaving. I get emails, phone calls, and visits from the same.

No, it is not a neurotic pulse. I believe that it is the recognition of an extremely serious issue that we are facing today. We are facing an epidemic in Christianity—an epidemic of unbelief among our own. Crowding our churches are those who are somewhere in the process of leaving. No, I am not talking about leaving a denomination. I am not talking about abandoning some institutionalized expression of Christianity. I am not talking about leaving the church (though related). And I am not even talking about renouncing religion. I am talking about those who are leaving Christ. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

As many of you may know, the blog was hacked and we lost most of the material due to corrupted files. As you can see, we have restored the blog up to a year ago, but as of right now, all the blogs for the last year are in the deep abyss.

If you happen to have any of the blog post from the last year, it would be great if you could post them here in the comments section. It really stinks to lose so much.

Stay tuned as we continue to try to recover.

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

Well, not me necessarily, but all Protestants. We Protestants really never know whether we are in or out with the Catholic Church. At one council it seems that we are damned to the fires of hell, and then, at another, we are “brethren,” separated, yet real brethren!

This all comes down to how the Catholic church is going to define their dogmatized phrase “outside the church [Roman Catholic Church] there is no salvation.” While Protestants often get blasted for our inability to agree on certain doctrines (rightly so in many cases), there is no less division among Catholics about what it means to be “outside the Church.”

Folks, I would like to know. My eternal life hangs in the balance.

On a more serious side-note, this does hamper Protestant/Catholic relations when it is believed that any non-Catholic is necessarily damned to hell (that is if they truly die a non-Catholic—more on this in a moment).

So, what do Catholics say? Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

N.B. RMMers, this email is something that my little old gray-haired mother sent to a long-time friend recently. Many of you can relate to the bombardment of factoids on your computer from well-meaning friends and conservative spam-generators. You may not agree with Nayda Wallace about her viewpoints, but I trust that you’ll see some good wisdom here nonetheless. I have found her missive to be a very articulate statement about how conservatives (both politically and religiously) should integrate politics with Christian beliefs. There is a priority scheme here that focuses on kingdom ethics and on Christ Jesus. Mom, thanks for your continued wisdom and sage advice that you have shown now for more than five decades of my life.

Dear _________,

Whereas I usually agree politically with most of what you say, I don’t always agree that we must repeat the message to our liberal loved ones. Here’s why (choose whichever reason you prefer): 1) I have a stronger message for them (especially if they don’t know it already), and that is that Jesus loves them. 2) As Joe Aldrich used to say, “when love is felt, the message is heard.” 3) If # 2 is true the message will not be heard if it is mixed with capitalized Obama factoids (some of which are highly suspect as to being fact). 4) I don’t believe that the conservatives are the good guys and the liberals are the bad guys. However, I do believe that some of the strong points of each party are worth merit and many of each party are not worth merit. And I do agree with more of the conservative basics than the liberal ones. 5) I don’t believe we live in a black and white world except in matters of faith. And even then, I have reduced my matters of faith to just what I believe the Bible teaches absolutely! I like the way Dan explains it and it is thus: “The older I get and the more I study, I find I believe less and less but that which I do believe, I believe more and more.” (Apologies to Dan as I paraphrased from memory.) (In other words, no arguments about “dunking or sprinkling,” which version of the Bible was the one Paul used, and whether I would stake my life on post-trib or pre-trib rapture—either way, I want to be there!) 6) I don’t believe Jesus died for a political party, but for sinners…including Democrats, Republicans, Muslims, and HORRORS, even Nazis! I do believe that conservatives are frequently arrogant about that fact. 7) Hence, although I read what you send, and digest it, and frequently save it on my computer, I seldom send it on because I want my relationship with these loved ones based on my love for them which is only possible because I’m forgiven. Having said all that, I admit to storing little bits of political trivia in my ancient brain to recall at moments of opportunity. Always couched in the greater truth that the body politic is not the end-all, be-all in God’s kingdom. And having said all that, I nevertheless really enjoyed the ad the conservative businessman placed in the paper. It took guts and conviction, traits which are frequently in short supply. And so for it’s worth, your passion is admirable. Your consistency is …well…consistent! And even though I commented that I might have enough guts to forward certain items on, I actually knew I wouldn’t. I will, however, store it away as a possible topic of conversation at the rare opportune moment. End of sermon for the day.

Love, Nayda B.

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

As I have been reading and reviewing books and blogs over the years, my approach has changed. This was not an overnight change, but something that just happened the more involved I became in engaging those who were serious about teaching and learning with intellectual honesty and integrity (something that, I am sad to say, does not always characterize Christian teachers). There are certain characteristics that I have found in people’s teaching that immediately alert me to the realization that I am wasting my time (which I don’t have much of!).

If you don’t want me to read your books or blogs (or listen to your sermon or lecture), here are some characteristics to adopt:

• Overstatement
• Unqualified Superlatives
• Non-Contingent Propositions

Yes, I know . . . maybe not what you expected. Many of your lists would include clarity, systematic presentation, grammer and spelling, and reference support. Those things are important to me as well (although you may not have noticed from my writing!), but the above list is what I notice most, especially in presentations and arguments that are theological in nature.

Overstatement, unqualified superlatives, and non-contingent propositions, are related and can be thought of as different ways of saying the same thing. In fact, you might say that they all belong in the same semantic domain that we might call “imbalance.” Once I detect imbalance, I usually have a hard time going on. Think of phrases like these: 

“I am absolutely certain that . . .”

“This is the only explanation for . . .”

“The church has always believed . . .”

“There is no doubt that . . .”

“Everyone knows that . . .”

“It is perfectly clear . . .”

“No educated person believes . . .”

And the like.

It is the tendency to represent your case without what many people call “epistemic humility”—a real understanding that you could be wrong. We all have a problem saying “I could be wrong” or “in my opinion” because we feel as if in doing so we are making concessions that undermine our case. We like to give our readers and listeners continued and perpetual confidence in the argument of our presentation. We feel that if we don’t gain this confidence at every point and turn, we have poked holes in our own vessel and that by the end of the voyage, our ship will be sunk. Therefore, everything must be air-tight. There is no room for personal opinion since the subjectivity that it presents gives way to uncertainty. There is no room for contingency, no room for insufficient data, and no place for the legitimacy of the opposition, even to the slightest degree. If we believe what what we are saying, we must justify this belief beyond any possibility of a doubt.

But, ironically, especially in a hyper-critical postmodern world, we give credit to our case when we do represent the transparency that accompanies real contingency and the revelation of epistemic humility. We show that we have a broader understanding of the issues. It evidences an honest wrestling with the subject of the proposition. In the end, when we do come to a conclusion on the matter, even with all the contingencies that we have worn on our sleeve, readers become more confident in your ability to think with integrity and have a greater confidence in your conclusions.

Notice what Strunk and White have to say in their popular book on writing style. Also, notice that this is not a book about how to write theology, but how to communicate through writing. The wise and timeless principles expressed here can be applied to any communication venue (even an argument with your spouse!)

“When you overstate, readers will be instantly on guard and everything that has preceded your overstatement as well as everything that follows it will be suspect in their minds because they have lost confidence in your judgment or your poise. Overstatement is one of the common faults. A single overstatement, wherever or however it occurs, diminishes the whole, and a single carefree superlative has the power to destroy, for readers, the object of your enthusiasm.” (Strunk and White. Elements of Style, Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 7).

Do you understand what they are saying? Once you characterize yourself with this type of imbalance, it is very rare that you will gain an audience (except with those who already agree with you). The object of your enthusiasm becomes diminished, finding relative balance in the strengths of your other overstatements. If Jesus Christ is the object of your enthusiasm, does his death, burial, and resurrection find equal qualification with your belief that your church is the one true church, that the world was created in six literal days, that the anti-Christ is Obama? Overstatement can destroy our testimony. With such a methodology the discharge of the Gospel becomes hamstrung.

Let me back up and say that if someone uses unqualified superlatives, overstatements, or non-contingent statements wisely and sparingly with intentionality, so long as their credibility has thus been established, I will not only tolerate them, but listen to them with a greater degree of interest and consideration. Why? Because they show themselves to be balanced and worthy of consideration.

Please note, this is not a postmodern concession to relativism, for I am not advocating that people hide convictions or not take stand for what they believe. Neither am I saying that you cannot have great degrees of certainty and assurance about many of your convictions. I am simply telling people that if you overstate your case, no matter what it is, I will have a hard time listening to what you have to say, and I think I speak for many.

So, if you don’t want want me to read your books or your blog, simply overstate your case at every turn. That is it. It is pretty simple. I would be careful, however, and consider whether or not you are wasting your own time in writing if these characteristics describe your approach. We honor God when we stand up for the truth, but we don’t honor him when we misrepresent the truth to accomplish our presupposed agenda that has not been critically thought through. God help us all to use our words wisely, especially those of us who are teachers. 

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

You know how I like to make charts. Click on it to make it larger.

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

This is an interesting question: Is sin fun? The answer, I guess, is going to depend on how you define the word “fun.” We are going to enter into some subjectivity here aren’t we? Wait, I am getting ahead of myself.

I have often her Christians talk about the “pleasures of sin.” In this context, the pleasures of sin are not said to be pleasures at all. It is said to be a “pseudo-pleasure.” It is not really fun. “Here, enter into our world. You will see that sin is not really fun, you just think it is. Join us so that your fun can no longer be fun.”

I was talking to a friend the other day who was not a believer. He said “Michael, I like to have fun. If I become a Christian, I will not be able to have fun any longer. I like my friends and I don’t want to lose them. Our connection is in what we do together. What is wrong with that? Why does God get so upset when we have fun?”

I was not comfortable with the standard answer above.

Sin is fun. At least it can be. I admit to this. I am an expert at both sin and fun. I like one, but often find the former a necessary conduit to this latter.

Now, obviously, we would not classify all sin as “fun.” Exploding in uncalled for anger is not fun. Worry is not fun. Demeaning others for the sake of self-security is not really fun. In many cases, the deepest sinful bents we have are not practiced for the sake of fun.

But some sin is fun and fun is our motivation for this sin. No, it is not pride, hate, or lack of faith that catapults us into this sin . . . it is just plain fun. It is to remedy the often mundane boring circumstance we find ourselves in. Escape from reality? Maybe. But it is often the reality we feel we are compelled to. Who wants to be bored. Boredom and escape from what we believe to be a trapped personality waiting to happen, can cause us to say, “What the heck! What harm does it really do? If we have a good time while engaging in some sin and as long as no one gets hurt, what’s the problem?”

This is not a defense of sin. God’s word is our ultimate authority, not our definition and drive for fun. Often the Christian life will be boring. Often doing what is right feels to go against our natural inclination for the fuller life. I think that this is what is so hard for some of us to realize. The “fuller life,” “fun,” and “pleasure” often change from day to day, having many dependencies. Personal instability will redefine everything. Telling a non-Christian that they are not really having fun may be the wrong direction to take. As well, I don’t think that this is the best direction for Christians to take in own own battle against sin.

Yes, there is pleasure in sin for a season, but that “season” may be our entire life.

Anyway, these are some intentionally random thoughts without much by way of concluding thoughts.

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

By the time you read this blog post, I will be back in Athens, coming off a week-long expedition to the island of Lesbos. Yes, Lesbos. This is the third largest of the 2000 Greek islands. And yes, it’s the place where the name ‘lesbian’ comes from. The reason for the name and its association with female-to-female sex is due to the classical Greek poet, Sappho. She lived here on Lesbos and founded a finishing school for girls. Apparently (the historical documents need to be pieced together, if I recall), part of what she taught in the school was how to love one’s husband. But since it was inappropriate for the girls to be with men, they were taught such techniques by older women. Hence, the name lesbian.

The Lesbians actually don’t care much for their name being co-opted by a socio-political group with an agenda. One of the ways they’ve dealt with the problem is to have an alternate name for the island: Mytilene. But no one here, as far as I know, is known as a Mytilenian.

One travel guide book mentioned that one could frequently see women holding hands on Lesbos, since the island was a magnet for such people. The only problem with this statement is that European girls in general hold hands with each other, without any sexual connotations at all. We’ve seen absolutely nothing unusual here, nothing out of the ordinary for the rest of Europe.

But that’s not what brought us to Lesbos in the first place. We finished our photographic work on Patmos and decided to spend a week on another Greek island in search of manuscripts. Lesbos has one of the largest collections of any Greek island, so we decided to come here. The manuscripts are to be found in something like seven monasteries, spread all over the island, and two other places. That’s the interesting part of the story. One of those other places is a high school! It’s an old ‘gymnasium,’ founded in 1840, and dedicated to the highest levels of learning. They even have a professor who is earning his doctorate in paleography at Oxford University. Pretty impressive place. The gymnasium (now called the Experimental Lyceum of Mytilene) is in downtown Mytilene, but it took us a day and a half to find it. We knew of two Greek New Testament manuscripts there, but discovered that the real treasure is a third one, unknown to us previously. We are hoping to get permission to photograph these manuscripts later this year; this trip was simply intended to make initial contact. We met Vasilis Vlachos, the Oxford-trained professor. Delightful fellow, good scholar.

The other place that was a surprise is an institute called ‘Club Benjamin.’ At least that was the name of the place listed in the Kurzgefasste Liste, the standard reference book on where New Testament manuscripts are located in the world. The K-Liste is basically a Bible on Bibles. We always bring a copy of it with us on expeditions.

Club Benjamin is in a town known as Plomari. That’s all the information we had. We drove to Plomari on hairpin mountain roads without guard rails. The drop off was deadly. The many crosses erected on the sides of this twisting, turning, tiny road are mute testimony to the treachery of driving in Greece. The one thing we didn’t want to do was to drive back in the dark.

Unfortunately, we arrived in Plomari a little late in the day due to my underappreciated navigational skills. (Anyone who knows me knows that I should never be assigned the navigator! I get lost going home!) Anyway, after a 40-mile detour, we finally found Plomari. But we didn’t find Club Benjamin. We got out of the car and asked all the locals if they had heard of the Club. No one had. We then drove another half a kilometer (on Lesbos, everything is allegedly half a kilometer away), right into the heart of this harbor town. We found some parking and Billy Todd, veteran of several Patmos expeditions, got out of the car and looked up at the two-story building right in front of us. The title of the old building was “Beniamin, o Lesbios.” Benjamin the Lesbian. Could this be the place? We found a way up to the second story (a back staircase) on this unnamed street. When we got up there, the folks in the place were surprised to see us there. In part, because we were younger than all the patrons by a good margin! This ‘club’ was not a nightclub, but a retirement home of sorts. It was a place where old, retired Greeks could play backgammon, billiards (though the pool table hadn’t been used in years), drink Ouzo, and gawk at the folks walking below in the town square. It was a place where gossip and old yarns could be spun without anyone looking at a watch. Very charming in its own way.

We noticed some glass-covered book shelves with some very old books in them. But the shelf number we were looking for was not there. So we spoke with one individual about what we were looking for, but he could hardly understand our impeccable English or Erasmian-slaughtered Greek. So, I wrote out in Greek what I wanted to say and he immediately placed a phone call. Answers were coming.

About 25 minutes later, the president of the ‘club’ and a friend came on the scene. It was about dusk now. We figured that we had better leave in the next few minutes if we were going to miss Death Trap Highway. I gave us fifteen tops before we could kiss our lives goodbye.

These gentlemen were most helpful, especially the friend. His English was excellent, making communication much easier. I asked where he learned it. He said, in a thick Australian accent, that he had been living down under for the past 44 years. Giorgio was just in town visiting old friends when the phone call came. Timing is everything.

We learned that the manuscript was no longer there, but we didn’t know where it was. Another phone call was placed and the owner of the club indicated that he had the manuscript in Athens currently (where he also happened to be). It was being photographed so that it could be published in a book, coming out next month.

Although this was disappointing news, we were able to buy a pre-release version of the facsimile with a handshake and exchange of some Euros. Before we could leave, however, food was served. Food and drinks and more old-timers showing up. Ouzo, the national drink of Greece, is especially big on Lesbos. The local Ouzo distillery was just a couple of kilometers away, and it had a great museum. The CEO of the distillery was soon at our table inviting us to take a tour of the place with him as our guide!

By the time we could say our goodbyes, daylight was a thing of the past. We were going to have to grope our way home on those unforgiving mountainous roads. When I thought that the Lord would surely protect us, I was reminded of the many crosses I had seen on the way to Plomari. Obviously, God doesn’t always work that way for his children. Sobering thoughts, but the kinds that get one to pray a bit harder.

As it turned out, driving in the dark ended up being a blessing in disguise. We could always see when an oncoming vehicle was approaching, and both could slow down and make the necessary adjustments. I suspect that many of the highway fatalities in Greece are due to small cars having to swerve to avoid big tourist busses that give no quarter. But our driver, Michael Schumacher (a.k.a. Brian Wright) himself gave no quarter. I’m just glad the police were sleeping off their Ouzo in other parts of the island!

Such are the adventures in looking for ancient copies of the New Testament. Now, we are back in our hotel—which has no telephone, no alarm clock, no television, and no air conditioning. And the Internet is unreliable, shutting down by 11 pm every night and hardly running well at other times. But since we’re on the coast, and the Aegean is especially calm tonight, I can get reception from another hotel half a kilometer away. Yes, half a kilometer away. Everything in Lesbos is half a kilometer away.

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

Now I will start to give a brief positive defense of the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura.

The Scripture implicitly and explicitly speaks of its unique authority and sufficiency.

2 Tim. 3:14–17
“You, however, must continue in the things you have learned and are confident about. You know who taught you and how from infancy you have known the holy writings, which are able to give you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the person dedicated to God may be capable and equipped for every good work.”

Notice here that the Scriptures are sufficient to give Timothy “wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.” So they are sufficient for salvation. Notice as well that the Scriptures are to be used for “training in righteousness” so that the person dedicated to God may be capable of “every [pan]good work” (emphasis added). If Paul truly believes that Scripture is sufficient for every good work, then this gives much credence to the basic foundational principles of the doctrine of sola Scriptura. This says that the Scriptures are sufficient for sanctification as well as salvation. The Scriptures are sufficient and,therefore, lacking in nothing.

Three things this passage teaches us:

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

3. Division is not always a bad thing

I am a Calvinist, others are Arminian. I believe in a premillenial eschatology, others are amillinial. I am a traducianist with regards to the creation of the soul, others are creationists. I believe in inerrancy, others believe that this is an archaic naive doctrine. There are many points of doctrinal division that I am going to have with people, some of which are much more important than others.

Why doesn’t everyone agree with me? Who is causing this disunity in the body of Christ, them or me? Do these division demonstrate the doctrinal bankruptcy of sola Scriptura? Should we elect of a Pope of Protestantism?

There are a few different ways that I could answer this.

1. Others don’t agree with me because they have not studied deep enough (lack of scholarship).
2. Others don’t agree with me because they have not studied broad enough (lack of perspective).
3. Others don’t agree with me because they have not studied long enough (lack of wisdom).
4. Others don’t agree with me because their traditional prejudices have created a learning disability that keeps them from the truth (lack of freedom of thought).
5. Others don’t agree with me because they have sin in their life that is blinding them to the truth (lack of holiness).
6. Others don’t agree with me because we don’t have an infallible authoritative interpreter of Scripture that would bring doctrinal unity?
7. Others don’t agree with me because they are not Christian. If they were, well . . . they would agree with me! (lack of salvation).

Generally speaking, I do not default to these possibilities. Don’t get me wrong, these are all possibilities. It could be that people deny the truth (assuming that my position is such) due to ignorance, lack of perspective or wisdom, traditional bindings, sin, lack of authority, or a presupposition of godlessness. But I think we need to be careful about any negative prejudgments about people motives and the ultimate reasons for disagreements.

Here are the considerations that I would aspire to make before I draw upon the former possibilities.

Others don’t agree with me because they are right and I am wrong.

Granted, I am convicted I am right. If this were not the case I would simply change my position. But the possibility always exists that I am the one who is in error, being misinformed, motivated by false pre-understandings, traditionally bound, or lacking perspective. I must consider this with great humility, as hard as it is to do.

There are some things that I am more sure of than others. For example, I am less likely to be wrong about the existence of God than I am about the doctrine of inerrancy. It is much more plausible that there is an error in the Scriptures than it is that God does not exist. As well, I am humbled by the fact that there are many things that I used to believe that I no longer believe. I held to these former beliefs with (what seems to be) just as much conviction as many of the beliefs that I hold to now. What do I do with that? In most of those cases, the evidence, or lack there-of, militated against my previous doctrinal commitments forcing me to make hard adjustments. For example, I used to believe that if someone did not accept the doctrine of inerrancy, they were not Christian. This was due to my fundamentalist presuppositions no doubt, but when faced with the evidence that there are many people out there who do not hold to inerrancy, yet loved and trusted the same Christ as me, my position had to either change or slumber in the bedroom of naivety. I still have those decisions to make. It is called learning.

What I must realize is this: there is not one belief that I hold to which is protected by infallibility. Infallibility is the other side of the coin of absolute certainty. Absolute certainty can only be held by those who have all the information and are interpreting it correctly. To be infallible means that you cannot fail. Since I am not infallible, by definition, I can fail. All of my beliefs are subject to my attribute of fallibility. There is no one who possesses infallibility. Even Roman Catholics, as we have said, who try to alleviate themselves of this reality by trusting in the dictates of an infallible magisterial authority such as the Pope inevitably face the same problem since their own trust in the infallible authority of the Pope is fallible. The same holds true for Evangelicals and our infallible Bible. Our belief in the Bible is fallible, even if the Bible itself is not. No one can escape their own fallibility. Therefore we all could be wrong. We are left to rely on a process of examining and weighting the evidence and following it wherever it leads. This will often cause us to change our beliefs.

Therefore, serious consideration must always be made of the proposition that people don’t agree with me because I am the one who is wrong.

Others don’t agree with me because God does not want us to agree, irrespective of who is right.

This may sound odd, but we must consider it. I said earlier that I was a Calvinist. While this does not give me exclusive right to the doctrine of God’s sovereignty, it does require me to consider what part it might play in the question Why doesn’t everyone agree with me? What I am really asking is this: Why isn’t everyone unified around the truth?

I believe that it is a real possibility—even likely—that God does not want absolute doctrinal unity. In fact, practically speaking, I think it would do more harm than good. I believe that doctrinal disagreements are healthy for the church. When there is conflict between opposing options, the issue at hand is understood at a more profound level than is possible in the absence of the conflict. Conflict, in the end, can bring about a deeper conviction of the truth. When there is no conflict, there is no iron sharpening iron.

I am not in any sense trying to relativize the truth, but to help us to understand that wrong beliefs, even our own, could be serving the purpose of God and bringing Him more honor than we recognize. It is often said that heresy is God’s gift to the church. Why? Because when a false option is presented the truth becomes much clearer. In contrast there is clarity. In clarity there is conviction.

It is for this reason that we must be continually engaged with alternative options. As hard as it is to engage in beliefs that go against our present convictions, we need to recognize the value of the struggle. Herein lies what I believe to be one of the greatest strengths of the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura—it presents the opportunity to wrestle with the issues at a level that is not allowed for in magisterial based traditions.

What I am saying is this: 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.

We have learned to celebrate diversity in every area of life. We celebrate the diversity of the sexes. Men: We know that we are always right, but can you imagine a world where women did not contribute to a balanced perspective? That is horrifying. Women, can you imagine the opposite (don’t answer that!). Think of the diversity among personalities, nations, political parties, age groups, and cultures. While we may believe that our opinion is correct (and it may be), from a certain perspective we can appreciate the allowance for a 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.

Advocates of sola Scriptura appreciate disagreements, but we also need to be careful about making the division created by such too wide.

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

The fifth argument against sola Scriptura:

Without the infallible authority of the Church, the Church would be hopelessly divided on matters of doctrine and morals. This would not be the Church that Christ started.

The idea here is that when doctrine is left to the “private interpretation” of the individual, this leads to doctrinal anarchy. Catholics and Orthodox alike often appeal to the thousands of Protestant denominations as a witness against the doctrine sola Scriptura.

Answer:

There are a few problems that I see with this argument. I will deal with the first to in brief and spend more time on the last one in the post that follows.

Problem 1: We don’t advocate “private interpretation”

This argument often assumes that sola Scriptura promotes an unbridled “private interpretation” that gives no authority to tradition. This is not the confession of sola Scriptura, but of nuda Scriptura, which I have spoken about previously. Advocates of sola Scriptura do not believe in this sort of private interpretation. We must interpret the Scriptures along with those who have gone before us, even if we might have warrant to question or disagree with their theology from time to time. Those who read the Scripture, as Alexander Campbell once advocated, “As if no one has read them before” are not following in the tradition of the Reformed view of sola Scriptura. Those must be judged on their own merit without association to the doctrine of sola Scriptura.

Problem 2: Everyone has divisions.

Protestants disagree about what the Scriptures say, Catholics disagree about what the Church says, and (as the saying goes) the Orthodox don’t say enough to disagree! Simply because one is put under a more definite designative umbrella does not make true unity. I, for example, have witnessed just as many disagreements among Catholics about what the Church means by “outside the Church there is no salvation” as I have among Protestants about any issue. All one has to do is to go spend some time on the Catholic Answers forum and see that they don’t function with much more unity than a Protestant forum. There would seem to be just as many disagreements, differing interpretations, and needless anathmatizing among Catholics as among Protestaants. The point is that simply because one functions under a unified name or confession does not mean that you have a unified belief.

It is agreed, however, that Protestants tend to have more divisions, but I would not say that this is the case with Evangelicals to the same degree as other Protestant traditions.

See this article for more on the overstatement of Protestant divisions.

Problem 3: Division is not always a bad thing

I will save this for a post tomorrow as it will take a little time.

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

For my upcoming Bibliology and Hermeneutics students, here is a rework of my stance on inerrancy.

Do I believe in inerrancy? I guess, these days, it depends on who you ask and how you define it. My initial answer is “yes”. But it may not reflect how you define it. I am not trying to redefine anything, but the fact is that when it comes to this issue there is a spectrum of belief in those who confess the doctrine. I am sure—no absolutely sure—that there would be those out there would would see my view of inerrancy as a liberal compromise. But I don’t see it in such a way.

I remember when I first began to read the Gospels I was rather confused about the repetition of the story of Christ. I was further confused that there seemed to be many places where the same event was told in different ways, using different words, and sometimes with different people involved. Whether it was Christ’s encounter with the demoniacs (Luke 18:27ff; Matthew 8:28ff) or the words written above the cross (Mark 15:26; Mark 19:19), there were differences.I noticed that differences of this type were the primary criticism to which skeptics would refer when attacking the reliability of Scripture and the truth of Christianity. This disturbed me. If the Bible was inspired, these differences should not be there. Isn’t the Bible inerrant? If it is, it cannot have discrepancies. How could God have gotten it wrong? How could inspired Gospel A say something different than inspired Gospel B?

As I sought answers, I found initial comfort in those who would explain these “discrepancies” in some (very) creative ways. Some would say that the parallel accounts that I was having problems with were not really parallel at all. They were different encounters all-together.

These types of explanations satisfied me at the time. I thus, unknowingly adopted what I believe now to be an unnatural and naively strict view of inerrancy I call “technically precise inerrancy.” This means that all the writers of Scripture, by virtue of their ultimate source of information (God), recorded everything precisely as it occurred.

I later came to realize that this methodology was not only unnecessary but was actually birthed, I believe, out of a very Gnostic view of Scripture. I was so emphasizing God’s role in the writing of Scripture that the role of man could not be found. Yet if God used man in writing Scripture, and Scripture was intended for man, then would not have God used a common means of communication that did not require technical precision in communicating events.

To make a long story short, I slowly began to adjust my view. I now adopt a view that I call “reasoned inerrancy.” “Reasoned inerrancy” is a definition of inerrancy that recognizes the vital role that one’s hermeneutic (method of interpreting Scripture) has in defining what we mean by “inerrancy.” It takes into account that the Scriptures must be interpreted according to the rules of interpretation governed by genre, historical accommodations, context, argument, and purpose. Only then can inerrancy be understood properly.

The modernistic need for things to be technically precise with regards to Scripture, ironically held by both ultra-conservatives and skeptics who seek to pick apart the Bible, is just that—a modern need that produces a warped apologetic and is birthed from a faulty hermeneutic.

Faulty presupposition of “Technically Precise Inerrancy”

Let me further define the faulty presupposition of the “technically precise view of inerrancy.” The presupposition is this: All writers of Scripture, by virtue of divine inspiration and inerrancy, must have recorded everything in a technically precise way. This means that everything that is recorded represents the events exactly as they occurred. Any deviation from the technically precise account, according to advocates of this view, amount to a complete undermining of the accuracy and authority of Scripture.

I take issue with this view. I do not believe that inspiration and inerrancy require technical precision. What I ask myself it this: Why would it be so difficult to believe that the authors of Scripture would take liberties in their recording of the Gospel narrative? Ouch! . . . Right? But think about it. Does taking liberties in the way someone recounts an event mean that they are producing fabrications or lies? Does it mean that they are untrustworthy accounts? Can’t people tell the same story different ways and even nuance that story according to their purposes and still be accurate?

We would never place these types of restraints upon people today. The Gospel writers were simply telling the story of Christ as enthusiastic reporters of good news who were emotionally committed to the truths upon which they were reporting. This happens every day in our own news reporting system and we don’t hold their feet to the fire of technical precision.

An Illustrated Test

Let’s do a test using one of my favorite illustrations. Let’s have two reporters report the news. We will take two reporters accounts of the president’s recent warning to Iran concerning its nuclear program and see how they fare.

Original statement from the president (not actual):
“We are winning the war on terror. The terrorists are on the run. We are dealing with each new threat in a decisive yet unique way. We have warned those regimes that seek to produce weapons of mass destruction that their time is short and they better comply with the will of the coalition or face serious consequences.”

Reporter #1: Bill O’Reilly
Context: Debate concerning whether or not we should turn our attention from Iraq to Iran.
Nuance: O’Reilly is defending the president to a leftist who believes that Bush is not focusing on the right war.
Statement: “You are not being fair. The president said today that we are dealing with each situation individually and that serious consequences will befall all the defiant even if this is in a different manner.”

Notice, O’Reilly represents the president’s speech truly, but in a particular nuanced fashion that is expedient to the moment. O’Reilly chooses to focus on the fact that the president says the threat will be dealt with in different ways. There is no untruth in the O’Reilly comment although it, technically speaking, is not exactly what the president said and it is nuanced according to the intent of O’Reilly.

Reporter #2: Sean Hannity
Context: Arguing with Allen Colmes concerning the president’s involvement of other nations in what Colmes believes to be American maverick tendencies to arrogantly make threats without the backing of other nations.
Nuance: Hannity is disagreeing with Colmes and is an avid Bush supporter.
Statement: “You don’t even listen to the president himself. He said today that there is a coalition of forces that are going to bring swift destruction upon the enemy.”

Once again, we do not have a technically precise statement from the president, but it is true nonetheless. Hannity, in this case, like O’Reilly, only focuses in on the issues that are expedient to his cause and then nuances the statement to his own purpose. Yet his purpose, while more focused than the president’s, could not be said to have strayed from the president’s original intent. Notice particularly that Hannity changes “serious consequences” to “swift destruction.”

Some may say that you cannot turn the ambiguous “serious consequences” to a more definite “swift destruction.” In some cases this may be uncalled for, but (and listen to this carefully) what if Hannity had recently heard the president say in other contexts that all in this coalition were prepared to do whatever is necessary in a timely fashion? What if in other speeches he had heard the president say that all those who seek weapons of mass destruction will share the same fate as Iraq? You see, Hannity may know the president well enough to read into his statements the fuller intent. He is at liberty to do so as long as it is accurately representing the president’s intent, to which he has particular insights.

This is the same when it comes to Scripture. We must allow the biblical authors this right. We must allow them to have a particular purpose in writing. We must allow for this type of freehanded, yet all-together accurate (inerrant), nuanced method of recounting the events. This liberty is part of inspiration, whether it be of the Gospels writers or any other author of Scripture. We believe that the Bible is a product that involves 100% man’s input and 100% God’s, don’t we? If we don’t, then we might as well take man out of the picture all together and admit we hold to mechanical dictation (that God simply used the human authors hands in writing the Scripture, not their head—sometimes called “biblical docetism”). If mechanical dictation is true, then we should not care who the authors were writing to and we certainly should not care why they are writing since their motives do not influence the interpretation.

Some may accuse me of uncritically adopting “redaction criticism.” Redaction criticism is the critical method of study that assumes the Gospel writers changed the events surrounding the life of Christ to fit their purpose. I do understand that people have taken this type of redaction criticism too far. Some have gone to the point of denying the truthfulness of the event based upon the expediency of the moment. But this is not what I am doing. I am just giving the authors liberty to write an accurate account of the events, while not having to be technically precise with the wording or structure. Therefore I do believe in a limited use of redaction criticism (although I would be careful who I said this around!). I would just not go so far as to say that the writers of Scripture ever produced fabrications, even if they did choose what to include due to the perceived needs of their audience.

One last thing: ipsissima verba vs. ipsissima vox

Scholars refer to these issues by referring to the difference between ipsissima verba (the very words) and ipsissima vox (the very voice). Did the writers record the very words of Christ or the spirit of truth that his words represent? I would say any inductive approach to arriving at a hermeneutical method demands the latter. Only if we deductively deduce that our theology of inspiration demands a strict level of preciseness within Scripture in order to be true, will we adopt the former. I believe that I have demonstrated that this is not only all-together unnecessary and naive, but misleading and dangerous.

Now, having said all of this, it is important for me to allow the same fairness that I hope to receive from others. There are good scholars who disagree with me and are well able to defend their position. I encourage you to wrestle with their views as they have important representation within evangelicalism.

Do I believe in inerrancy? If you mean “technically precise inerrancy,” the answer is no. But if you mean “reasoned inerrancy” that holds to an authorial intent hermeneutical method which includes ipsissima vox, then the answer is yes

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

The next argument against sola Scriptura:

Without the infallible declaration of the Church, there would be no way of knowing what books belong in the canon of Scripture. Since there is no inspired canon of Scripture, the “Scripture alone” is not even enough to establish what Scriptures are truly Scripture. Therefore, the doctrine of sola Scriptura is self-defeating.

This is true. I am looking on page 23 of my Bible and it has the list of books. The books all together number 66, 39 in the Old Testament and 27 in the New Testament. This is often referred to as the “canon” of Scripture. “Canon” (Gk. kanon) means “rule” or “measuring rod.” The canon of Scripture is the collection or a “rule” of books that Christians believe belong in the Bible. There are some variations among Christian traditions concerning the number of books. The Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox churches all use different canons (as well, some eastern churches will vary still). The Catholic and Orthodox include a group of books in their Bibles referred to as the Deuterocanonical books (”second canon”) or, as Protestants would call it, the “Apocrypha” (although the Orthodox church is not quite as settled upon the status of the Apocrypha).

The question How do you know what books belong in the Bible? is a significant one indeed and presents, what I believe to be, the most persuasive argument against sola Scriptura that there is. The Catholics and Orthodox will normally refer to the establishment of these books as part of the canon by fourth century councils. Catholics would further refer to the teachings of the council of Trent (1545-1563) which dogmatically and infallibly declared the current Catholic canon (including the Apocrypha) as being authoritative.

I believe that the 66 books of the Protestant canon belong in the Bible, no more no less. I believe that all 66 books are inspired, inerrant, and infallible. Yet the list on page 23 of my Bible is not part of the canon. In other words, the list itself is not part of the inspired word of God. I am using the New American Standard Bible, but it is the same in any version of any language. Even the NET Bible does not have an inspired list—even in the footnotes! There is no early Greek or Hebrew manuscript that solves the problem either. Therefore I have a potential difficulty. Since do not believe in an infallible human authority that has determined what books belong in the Bible, how can I be certain what books belong in the Bible and still profess sola Scriptura?

It would seem that the Scripture alone is not sufficient to establish the Scripture alone!! Do we have an fallible canon of infallible books?

It was R.C. Sproul who first made the claim that Protestants have a fallible canon of infallible books. A fallible canon of infallible books? What good is that? Catholics often jest about the seemingly ironic situation in which advocates of sola Scriptura find themselves. Catholics claim that they, due to their belief in a living infallible authority, have an infallible collection of infallible books, and that we are just borrowing from them!

Not only this (as an aside), but what about interpretation? Not only do Protestants not believe in an infallible authority to dogmatize which books belong in the Bible, but they don’t believe in an infallible authority to interpret the Bible. Therefore, we can take this to the next level. Protestants have a fallible interpretation of an fallible canon of infallible books. Ouch! Sounds like it is time to convert to Catholicism, eh?

Not so fast. In the end, this is an issue of epistemology. Epistemology deals with the question “How do you know?” How do we know the canon is correct? How do we know we have the right interpretation? Assumed within these questions is the idea of certainty. How do you know with certainty? Not only this, but how do you know with absolute certainty?

The question that I would ask is this: Do we need absolute infallible certainty about something to 1) be justified in our belief about that something, 2) to be held responsible for a belief in that something. I would answer “no” for two primary reasons:

1. This supposed need for absolute certainty is primarily the product of the enlightenment and a Cartesian epistemology. To say that we have to be infallibly certain about something before it can be believed and acted upon is setting the standard so high that only God Himself could attain to it. Outside of mathematics and analytical statements (e.g. a triangle had three sides), there is no absolute certainty, only relative certainty. This does not, however, give anyone an excuse or alleviate responsibility for belief in something.

For example, I believe that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. I prepare each day with this belief in mind. Each night, I set my alarm clock and review my appointments for the following day, having a certain expectation that the next day will truly come. While I have certainty about the sun rising the next day, I don’t have infallible certainty that it will. There could be some astronomical anomaly that causes the earth to stop its rotation. There could be an asteroid that comes and destroys the earth. Christ could come in the middle of the night. In short, I don’t have absolute infallible certainty about the coming of the next day. This, however, does not give me an excuse before men or God for not believing that it will come. What if I missed an early appointment the next day and told the person “I am sorry, I did not set my alarm clock because I did not have infallible certainty that this day would come.” Would that be a valid excuse? It would neither be a valid excuse to the person who I was supposed to meet or to God.

We have a term that we use for people who require infallible certainty about everything: “mentally ill.” Remember What About Bob? He was mentally ill because he made decisions based on the improbability factor. Because it was a possibility that something bad could happen to him if he stepped outside his house, he assumed it would happen. There are degrees of probability. We act according to degrees of probability. Simply because it is a possibility that the sun will not rise tomorrow does not mean that it is a probability that it won’t.

The same can be said about the canon and interpretation of Scripture. Just because there is a possibility that we are wrong (being fallible), does not mean that it is a probability. Therefore, we look to the evidence for the degree of probability concerning Scripture.

2. The smoke screen of epistemological certainty that seems to be provided by having a living infallible authority (Magisterium) disappears when we realize that we all start with fallibility. No one would claim personal infallibility. Therefore it is possible for all of us to be wrong. We all have to start with personal fallible engagement in any issue. Therefore, any belief in an infallible living authority could be wrong. As Geisler and MacKenzie put it, “The supposed need for an infallible magisterium is an epistemically insufficient basis for rising above the level of probable knowledge. Catholic scholars admit, as they must, that they do not have infallible evidence that there is an infallible teaching magisterium. They have merely what even they believe to be only probable arguments. But if this is the case, then epistemically or apologetically there is no more than a probable basis for Catholics to believe that a supposedly infallible pronouncement [either about the canon or interpretation of the canon] of their church is true” (Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, p. 216).

Here is a graph to illustrate what I mean:

This means that we are all floating in the same river, just different boats. Catholics (Dual-Source Theory) have a fallible belief about an infallible authority; Advocates of sola Scriptura have a fallible belief about an infallible authority. Both authorities must be substantiated by the evidence and both authorities must be interpreted by fallible people. In the end, what is the difference? Advocates of sola Scriptura just cut out the infallible middle man.

Do advocates of sola Scriptura have a fallible collection of infallible books? Yes. We concede such. When all is said and done, all of our beliefs are fallible and therefore subject to error. But remember, the possibility of error does not necessitate the probability of error. We have to appeal to the evidence to decide. God would [probably] accept nothing less.

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

If you have not subscribed to the Theological Word of the Day, you should.

Here is today’s entry:

Sola Fide

Latin “faith alone”

The historic Protestant doctrine that the only instrumental cause of justification, from the human perspective, is faith. While God is the ultimate cause of justification, Protestants believe that faith in Christ through the message of the Gospel is necessary. There are no works, no matter how meritorious they may seem, that can add to justification (Eph. 2:8-9). This doctrine, according to Protestants, finds its roots in the teachings of Paul but was obscured in the middle ages and restored during the Reformation. Many Protestants would be quick to point out that it is not the doctrine itself that saves, but the reality that the doctrine represents. In other words, one is saved by faith alone, not by belief in the doctrine of faith alone. As well, most Protestants would say that “it is faith alone that saves, but the faith that saves will not be alone.” This doctrine represents a major point of distinction between Protestants and Catholics, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and, often, Eastern Orthodox.

For more on this, see Michael Horton’s article “Are We Justified By Faith Alone? – What Still Divides Us: A Protestant & Roman Catholic Debate.”

Also, for a historical look at the doctrine of Justification, see Oden’s A Justification Reader.

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

The third argument for the Dual-Source Theory and against sola Scriptura has to do with a concept called “apostolic succession.” Most non-Anglican Protestants are not very familiar with this concept, but it has deep roots in the theological history of the church. How one defines “apostolic succession” will differ. This differing is not one with regards to purpose, but process. Before I say more, let me restate the argument that an advocate of the Dual-Source theory of authority might take:

3. Christ gave infallible authority over the Church to the Apostles and their successors (apostolic succession). Roman Catholic Only: Peter and his successors were given the ultimate and infallible authority in the Church (”papacy” or the “Seat of Rome”).

Jn. 20:23
[Christ, speaking to the apostles] “If you forgive anyone’s sins, they are forgiven; if you retain anyone’s sins, they are retained.”

Matt. 18:18
“I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you release on earth will have been released in heaven.”

This represents the ultimate authority of the Church which has the authority to “bind” and “release.”

Matt. 16:17–19
“And Jesus answered him, ‘You are blessed, Simon son of Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father in heaven! And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you release on earth will have been released in heaven.”

For the Roman Catholic, this teaches that Peter was given a special and ultimate authority among the Apostles. Therefore, his successors (the Bishop of Rome, the Pope), would naturally carries this same authority.

Response:

It is agreed that Peter and the apostles were given authority and the guidance to teach the truth. Their authority and teaching continues today. But, from a Protestant perspective, this authority and teaching is not through an unbroken lineage of succession, but through their teaching contained in the Scripture. In other words, Protestant believe in apostolic succession, but believe that this succession is a succession in teaching, not necessarily person.

However, Protestants should recognize that a succession in person is a necessary part of the succession in teaching (this is why we still practice ordination).  It is not a guarantee of the proper succession and must be continually tested by a foundational source (Scripture). In fact, I think we as Protestants should deeply consider our attitude toward the doctrine of apostolic succession. The common free Protestant mentality is fueled by those who find no connection, no accountability, indeed, no knowledge of the faith that has gone before them. This is not to our credit. We need to find a way to reassess our position here. I would be a strong advocate of any movement to re-institute the norm of apostolic succession within the Evangelical church at large. Again, this would not involve some infallible guarantee, but it does connect us to the historic Christian faith rather than our own johnny-come-lately denominational bent. (More on this someday).

Nevertheless, concerning some infallible conference being passed on through the Apostles to some successors, while this might be nice and I have nothing against it, I simply have no reason, outside of a pragmatic desire for unity, to believe such occurred. The Scriptures presented concerning the authority of the apostles concerns them alone. There is nothing, from what I can see, said either explicitly or implicitly concerning the passing on of some infallible authority through apostolic succession.

Concerning the Roman Catholic idea of ultimate infallible authority being conferred on the successors of Peter, this idea cannot be found in the Church until the late Middle Ages (unless forced into the thoughts of the Church fathers). As well, it was not declared dogma by the Catholic Church until Vatican I (1870). See here in Vatican I:

“The Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff [Pope] hold primacy over the whole world, and that the Pontiff of Rome himself is the successor of the blessed Peter, the chief of the apostles, and is the true vicar of Christ and head of the whole Church and faith, and teacher of all Christians; and that to him was handed down in blessed Peter, by our Lord Jesus Christ, full power to feed, rule, and guide the universal Church, just as is also contained in the records of the ecumenical Councils and in the sacred canons.”

From my perspective (and I think I speak with some common sense here), if God wanted believers to see the Church as an institutional authority that houses infallibility, either through the unity of the bishops or the ex cathedra statements of the Pope, then it goes without saying that this would be a primary doctrine that the Bible should address.

While the Scriptures contain many opportunities to teach this type of apostolic succession, either through example in the book of Acts or through explicit instruction in the Pastoral epistles, there is no such teaching. The Scriptures just don’t teach that the Apostles conferred their authority—infallible authority—on anyone else.

To rely solely upon unwritten Tradition begs the question and makes one wonder why such an important doctrine is unmentioned in Scripture. All attempts to find the doctrine of infallible apostolic succession in Scripture, in my opinion, must be labeled as eisegetical theology (reading your theology into the text, rather than deriving one’s theology from the text).

In the end, suffice it to say that advocates of sola Scriptura believe in apostolic succession (succession in teaching—small “a”), not Apostolic succession (succession in person—big “A”)

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

I am not up on the facts of this case, but I found this article very interesting. Most importantly, it would seem that according to some, such a discovery (described below) would undermine the cretibility of the Christian message. What do you think?

_____________________

JERUSALEM — A three-foot-tall tablet with 87 lines of Hebrew that scholars believe dates from the decades just before the birth of Jesus is causing a quiet stir in biblical and archaeological circles, especially because it may speak of a messiah who will rise from the dead after three days.

If such a messianic description really is there, it will contribute to a developing re-evaluation of both popular and scholarly views of Jesus, since it suggests that the story of his death and resurrection was not unique but part of a recognized Jewish tradition at the time.

The tablet, probably found near the Dead Sea in Jordan according to some scholars who have studied it, is a rare example of a stone with ink writings from that era — in essence, a Dead Sea Scroll on stone.

It is written, not engraved, across two neat columns, similar to columns in a Torah. But the stone is broken, and some of the text is faded, meaning that much of what it says is open to debate.

Still, its authenticity has so far faced no challenge, so its role in helping to understand the roots of Christianity in the devastating political crisis faced by the Jews of the time seems likely to increase.

Daniel Boyarin, a professor of Talmudic culture at the University of California at Berkeley, said that the stone was part of a growing body of evidence suggesting that Jesus could be best understood through a close reading of the Jewish history of his day.

“Some Christians will find it shocking — a challenge to the uniqueness of their theology — while others will be comforted by the idea of it being a traditional part of Judaism,” Mr. Boyarin said.

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!