Unpacking “Sola Scriptura”

    Of all the doctrines most necessary for the maintenance of Christian truth and teaching, perhaps none is so important as “Sola Scriptura.”  And yet when we come to examine what “Sola Scriptura” actually means, we find that definitions differ radically among professing Christians.  The difference involves, NOT the fact that the Bible is deemed the center of authority for the Christian faith, but how one uses the Bible.  One interpreter reasons from the premise that the New Testament contains the final assessment of truth for the entire church age.  Another person believes that the N.T. only contains the “deposit” from which the final assessment must be developed.  The former views the Bible as an all-sufficient standard; the latter as the “raw material” which must be refined in the crucible of the interpreter’s “best judgment.”  The former maintains that the “finished product” is the New Testament canon; the latter that the “finished product” is a theological “system.”  Under the first theory, there is remarkable similarity of opinion among theologians regarding the truths of Christianity.  Under the second, there is little consensus.  And so theologians take arms against each other  —   the greatest divines being accounted the greatest warriors.  Amid the dust of battle, few seem to realize that despite their admirable desire to “defend the truth,” the feud is a futile one; for the simple reason that the truths of Christianity were not meant to be debated, but received and believed (Romans 10: 17; James 1: 21; 1 Peter 1: 2).  Only when fallible men stop claiming the final assessment of truth will the smoke clear away, and much-needed peace be restored to Christ’s church..

The Mainstay Of “Sola Scriptura”

    As one who is considered (at least by my friends) to be a faithful Protestant, I hold tenaciously to the principle of “Sola Scriptura.”  And yet, when I begin to articulate my understanding of what “Sola Scriptura” really is, I find that the conventional definitions fall so short that they fail to help ME clarify what I believe.  Of course, if there were some standardized formula to which I could resort, I would be “made in the shade.”  But there isn’t.  That there are certain definitions which pose as standardized expressions of the “Sola Scriptura” concept does not solve my problem, because these very definitions fail to differentiate between the actual teachings of Scripture and the inferences and deductions which men draw therefrom.  Since our inferences are fallible and uninspired, they cannot without peril be raised to an authority equal with Scripture itself.  And yet this is often exactly what is done!  Man’s deductions are unconsciously substituted for the implicit teachings of God’s word; merely through failure to distinguish between declarative and inferential doctrine.  The one is contained in God’s word, and is a constant variable.  The other is produced in the laboratory of man’s brain, and is as fluctuating as the wind.  These facts considered, a bit of sober reflection will apprise any reasonable man that the distinction must be made before we can know what “Sola Scriptura” means..

When Logic Slams The Door

    Last week, I wrote a brief article detailing Bryan Lewis’s journey into liberal agnosticism.  It now appears that his blog has sparked quite a bit of controversy within the Hyper-Preterist community.  But while remarks have been bandied about by those wishing to know more about his current views, and perhaps convince him that he is headed in the wrong direction, what no one seems to have observed, is that Lewis’s downfall was not sudden, but gradual and insidious.  Just last year (February 2009) he affirmed that Christendom was now ripe ‘n’ ready to learn about the truths of covenant eschatology (source).  To this end, Lewis launched a church called “Fulfilled Life Bible Fellowship,” which met on April 4th, at the Ramada Inn Conference Center in Lebanon, TN.  Despite its lofty pretensions, though, the project never amounted to anything, but fizzled out, nothing more being heard from Bryan, until around September he announced on a now-defunct Ning site, that there will never be any compatability between Hyper-Preterism and orthodoxy, since the two are like oil and water, which never do mix..

Clowns And False Premises

  To some folks, it is extremely difficult to imagine how a heresy like Hyper-Preterism could ever operate in a Christian environment.  When we describe what Hyper-Preterism is all about, they shake their heads and smile that anyone could be so gullible as to believe that all prophecy was fulfilled in A.D. 70.  However, when we see how even earnest believers are often led astray by false premises and presuppositions, Hyper-Preterism’s existence ceases to be mysterious. In fact, it is something that we might expect under the circumstances. 

   I always tell people, in my humble way, that premises are everything.  An example of how crucial they can be in our evaluation of facts and data, springs to mind when I think of John Wayne Gacy (1942-1994).  Gacy was known as a charming guy, a successful businessman, and one who, to all superficial appearances, looked as if he was the model citizen.  He even threw clown parties for kids.  If I pointed these characteristics out to someone who had never heard of him, the inference would naturally be that Gacy was a good person.  Notwithstanding, we all know that that individual would not be in a position to properly assess the evidence, because he was not told that Gacy was a serial killer..

Defusing Hyper-Preterism: Step #3 — Applying Sola Scriptura

     When the Hyper-Preterist has agreed to the basic premises of Christianity, then and only then will the apologist be ready to open the Bible and discuss the meaning of texts.  Remember, there are three main materials that one will need when discussing the plausibility of Hyper-Preterist doctrine and its errors —  1): a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures; 2): a working knowledge of church history; and 3): an understanding of the development of the New Testament canon.  Complementary to this knowledge is the reception of certain premises and presuppositions, such as that —  1): For 2,000 years, God has maintained a correct understanding of eschatology within His community of saints; 2): the Bible is revelatory literature, and is to be received as such; 3): God has left us with a current canon of Scripture, which contains the final assessment of truth for the entire church age.  Anyone lacking any of the above is not  —  I repeat is not —  properly equipped to defuse Hyper-Preterism, no matter how prominent their ministries, or who they think they are.  God is no respecter of persons..

Reformed Exegesis Vs. Private Interpretation

     I’ve recently been reading a lot of material on the English Reformation.  These studies, though still ongoing, have really helped to clarify the flaws of the Hyper-Preterist concept of “Sola Scriptura.”  Hyper-Preterism is a doctrine which holds that all New Testament eschatology was fulfilled in A.D. 70.  Those who hold to this system privately interpret the Scriptures, apart from 2,000 years of Christian understanding.  Although some of them have appealed to the Reformed doctrine of “Sola Scriptura,” it remains to be seen whether or not the Reformers ever intended that Biblical exegesis should be conducted in a historical vacuum, as Hyper-Preterists have done.  After reading the writings of some of the earliest Reformers, I have come to the conclusion that the answer is a resounding “no!”

Listening To 2,000 Years Of Christian Teaching

    I was recently contacted by Joe Heschmeyer, co-author of the “Shameless Popery” blog, who posted a counter-response to my rebuttal of his contention that in order to accept the historical argument consistently, one must embrace Roman Catholicism.  Joe’s post is entitled “Listening To The Church Fathers,” and is actually a pretty solid defense of the Roman Catholic position.  In fairness, I have to tip my hat to Heschmeyer, because he is a first-class debater  —  much better than myself.  But despite his rhetorical excellence, he is lacking the true perspective..

Preterism Vs. The New Testament

    If you’ve ever spoken to a Preterist, you may have heard him/her discount Peter’s statement that “the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour” (1 Peter 5: 8), by claiming that Paul said Satan would be crushed under the church’s feet “shortly” (Romans 16: 20). While to some the argument may sound like a good one, what the majority of folks don’t realize, is that Preterists are subtly making a “mental suggestion,” which requires Christians to reject both Peter and Paul as authoritative revelators of church-truth.

   Nothing could be more dangerous for the spiritual welfare of believers, than to embrace Preterist hermeneutics and argumentation as a valid evangelical option. For the result of buying into their system is nearly always the same: a repudiation of the direct authority of the New Testament. Although opinions regarding the applicability of “all Scripture” (2 Tim. 3: 16) to the household of faith differ, Christendom has historically accepted the New Testament canon as containing the final assessment of truth for the church age. It was the belief in an authoritative canon that fueled the Reformers’ doctrine of “Sola Scriptura.” It is this presupposition on which evangelical Christians rely when they engage in personal witnessing, as well as pastoral and missionary work..