In no way am I trying to create a movement, nor am I trying to glorify myself. I am not condemning people that do this, nor am I asking you to do what I am doing. Rather I had a thought that really made me think hard about Scripture. The Reformation declared "Scripture Alone" or Sola Scriptura, which affirms that ."..the Bible is the sole written authority for the faith and life of God's people. " It helps, guides and feeds our journey throughout this life. I love to read books, I may even have to buy another bookshelf for all the books I have, but I feel like sometimes we get alittle distracted. I had a seminary professor tell me once that so many people want to know what Piper thinks about a particular passage. Or John MacArthur says about this passage, or (insert name) says about a passage. He said what does Scripture say about that passage! SO many times we run to commentaries or books of authors to tell us what it says and yes that is useful but make sure you do an inductive study of the passage. Another thing that struck me was recently I saw Francis Chan speak about being fed ideas of Scripture. Using an encounter of two Jehovah's Witnesses and how they said Jesus was Michael the Arc Angel. He said that if you just read the Gospels, no commentaries, and had nothing else to feed you viewpoints, do you really see Jesus that way? Is that what Scripture indicates? More than likely no, but you were fed that.
So this led me to embark on simply reading Scripture. I will not read any external books (commentaries, supplemental) for the next month and focus on reading Scripture to gain a habit that should have been formed long ago. Any questions I may have I will write down and address later, or ask friends. I just want to absorb the Word, I want to soak in what God's word says and read it without being "fed" (presuppositions) or anything. God's word obviously can teach me all that I need: I can meditate on it (Josh. 1:8; Psalm 119:15) and learn from it. Not having commentaries or supplemental books didn't seem to stop the growth of the early church. (with this I understand that the NT wasn't whole until the 300's---though I would argue that since the Muratorian Canon of 125 had basically all the books contained in that Canon, there was a certain collection already being distributed--Plus see Colossians 4:16 for letters being read in other churches)
So far when looking at Scripture I know that God's Word is completely sufficient for my learning and growing in my faith:
We know that...
God's Word is eternal,
Mark 13:31
God's Word is Inspired by God
2 Timothy 4:16
2 Peter 1:19-21
God's word is living, active
Hebrews 4:12
We also know that if we remain in God's word that it will help us to avoid dishonoring God (Psalm 119:11)
I hope that this either convicts you in the sense that maybe your giving more time to other books than God's Word. I hope it encourages you to read more of God's Word, to thirst for it and seek passages that discuss God's Word (in its various forms). But most importantly I want you to see this as an entry of my need for growth, and my willingness to give something up so that I can grow in God's Word.
I also understand that since I am teaching various bible studies that involve supplemental books I will have to summerize them to keep my lessons clear and concise. Therefore I will exclude (work related) books that I will need to summerize for up-coming studies.
Also I will not be on a computer for the next week so my next entry will be on Monday!
Be Blessed
Is Half of The Story Sufficient For Salvation?
ReplyDeleteHow many sides are there to a story? If you say two, then you are wrong. If you had one side and I had one side that would make two sides. However, there is a third side, the side of truth.
Rule # 1... One half of truth does not a truth make. Neither does one half of a story make the full story. No intelligent person can hear one side of a story and decide which side has the truth.
Both sides have to be heard, then analysed, and then a decision has to be made as to which side (if either) has a valid story, and after that, the right side(s), or truth side, can be determined.
This thinking holds true for discerning what Holy Scripture tells us.
Throughout the Bible there are double standards, yet the fundamentalist thinking shows only one standard, or one side of the story, or only one half of the truth.
Their thinking is in violation of rule # 1. With only one half of truth, you do not have truth. Anything less than the whole truth is error.
In the following examples, side 'A' is the first side, side 'B' is the second, and side 'C' is the right, or truth side.
Example # 1... Sola Scriptura...? Only the Bible. Fundamentalist thinking is that the Bible is sufficient and nothing else is needed for salvation.
First of all, in order to believe in the 'Bible Only' philosophy, you have to show that Scripture says it. Is that not true? The doctrine of 'Sola Scriptura' is not to be found in Scripture.
A. Tradition is condemned in many places in Scripture, such as Job 22:15, Matthew 15:6, Mark 7:3-13, Galatians 1:14, Colossians 2:8, 1Timothy 1:4, Titus 1:14, and 1Peter 1:18. Look at these verses and grasp their meaning.
They all address 'vain' human traditions and are rightly condemned. This is one half of the truth.
B. Tradition is supported in more places in Scripture than it is condemned. Study Isaiah 59:21, Luke 1:2, 2:19,51, Luke 10:16, 2Thessalonians 2:14-15 - "Stand firm and hold the traditions you have learned..", 2Timothy 1:13,2:2, 1Peter 1:25, 1Jn 1:1,2:24, 2Jn 1:12, Revelation 12:17,19:10.
These are different traditions than mentioned in 'A'. These are the Traditions of GOD, or 'Apostolic' Tradition.' Again, this is only half of the truth.
C. The truth is, yes, we do condemn the vain tradition of men, as shown in 'A', and we must keep the Tradition of GOD, as shown in 'B'.
Thus we have half the truth in 'A', and the other half in 'B', and combined we have the full truth.
The false doctrine of Sola Scriptura adds A and B together and puts the total in A, rejecting all of tradition. A+B=C.
I appreciate your comment Michael and am glad that you found my blog. I hope that you have been able to read some other entries.
ReplyDeleteFirst let me clarify where this blog was headed. I wrote this blog, not with the theological focus of Sola Scriptura, though it is mentioned in terms of a desire to seek Scripture itself rather than the extensive time i was spending on other books. MEaning that I was reading other books "in place of" Scripture. Authors such as Macarthur, or Piper, or CHan, Erasmus, etc.. are great reads and have taught a lot about Scripture, BUT they are NOT authoritative. They write about Scripture, using Scripture but they are NOT Scripture. I do not discount their contributions to society or even to biblical interpretation but I also must see that they are men.
so what about Sola Scriptura? This is the topic I think that you are addressing more than what my attempt at drawing closer to Christ through His word (James 4:8)was originally.
so I guess I will do a short explanation why I believe so.
He has declared that His word is inspired by Him (see verses on original post) and that He IS truth. Logically if He is truth, He inspired the writers to give truth, then I must be reading truth. How is that being a fundamentalist? I am not a bible literalist which is different from saying that Scripture is authoritative for one's faith and life. I can read other books and learn good life lessons from them, but they are writing from biblical passages to illustrate those lessons. Meaning I can go to the source.
Now about tradition, as you have stated, Scripture illustrates that man's vain tradition is to be condemned. Yet we see tradition to be used as an example to hold fast. (2 Thess. 2:15) What traditions are these exactly? Well we know they cannot be traditions that contradict Scripture's teaching, or of what value would they be in relation to 2 Tim. 4:16. Look contextually at 2 Thessalonians 2:1-15. Paul is addressing many evils that will come, how people will fall away, and how "people refused to love truth and so be saved."(2:10)Being deceived and led astray by the lawless one. Since Greek does not break in thought he shifts to praise for the brothers (believers) in Thessaloniki because they were chosen, and are being sanctified through he gospel preached by Paul. Paul illustrates they were: chosen, saved, sanctified, and called through the gospel--so they can share in the glory of Christ! Now comes the exhortation: hold firm to the tradition..." The Greek for tradition is paradosis--which can mean a giving out or giving over cities (like surrendering). But it also means to give out instruction or a substance of teaching through mouth or writing. Such as Moses who spoke, but also had the Law written as it expanded. This word is better translated "teachings" but tradition will do also. The point is that Paul is addressing teachings or instructions that had been given by himself (" teachings WE passed onto you...") These teachings would have authority as Paul was an apostle. Paul wrote many letters (by letter) to respond to communities he had already GIVEN instruction (by mouth). The instruction (being true to context) would have been to stand firm on the truths that Christ is King, Lord, that he loves you, has chosen you and you are saved, for you believed in truth (vs. 13). Stand firm on that as hard times are here. This is a truth we stand on today like the Thessalonian community.
I hope that you are having a blessed day. Thank you again for reading my blog. Be Blessed