It was interesting to read the various thoughts people had when I asked if anyone else had a guess what The Next Big Thing might be in Christian blogging. No one guessed the same thing I’m thinking of, but I found some of the responses really interesting.
Anyway, for what it is worth, here is something I’ve observed.
I’m noticing an uptick in the number of people in blogland confessing that they no longer believe certain things regarding the Scriptures. It might be they no longer believe in the inerrancy of the Scriptures, they no longer believe in the authority of the Bible, they no longer believe the Bible is sufficient for salvation and instruction, they no longer accept the infallibility of the Scriptures, or something related to one of these trains of thoughts. Much of it revolves around Sola Scriptura.
This kind of thinking is not new. It has been around forever. What concerns me is that it appears to be spreading amongst those that I would least expected this of. Beyond that I don’t want to remark.
As I said in my first post, I am not going to enter into a discussion about this. I simply don’t have the time to moderate and contribute to an involved debate over these issues. But as a Christian who believes strongly in the power of God’s Word, I find this a deeply troubling development. Maybe I’m wrong, but I thought I would mention it to make people aware. God’s Word is able to withstand any scrutiny. If anyone is struggling with these topics, I urge you to pray for the Holy Spirit to open your eyes to the truth and lead you into all truth.
Yes I’ve noticed quite a few discussions around this issue. I find it fascinating, but not really very spiritually helpful, so I’ve stopped reading such discussions. I do often wonder if Paul and the gang knew they were writing scripture…but then Peter did refer to Paul’s writing as scripture so they must have know the gravity of what they were writing – God’s hand on it.
I echo your words to pray for the Holy Spirit to open eyes to the truth. The Bible is God’s Word and is just too wonderful to live without.
Blessings.
Okay so I had this LONG comment and then I forgot to do the addition problem and POOF! I had to start over. This will be the more succinct version of what I said.
I am not seeing this problem Sallie, but it may be that I’m not reading the same blogs as you. I kind of have a feeling a blog or two you are talking about, but my perception (which may be way off!) is that people are rethinking INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE. Not Authortity of Scripture?
I can only speak my personal experience. There was a day in my life I would have told you all Catholics would go to hell, using birth control, and drinking were all BAD things and TRUE because my pastor or XYZ pastor said so. Those days are gone. I still believe in the Authority of Scripture, that ALL scripture is given to us by God, God-breathed into man for our reproof, correction, and guidance.
But, I don’t have to believe Doug Phillips’ interpretation of this or that scripture to be the “opinion” of God. Or Billy Graham, or me, or whoever…I’m not just pickin’ on Vision Forum anymore.
So, I guess I say, I see the problem being more people standing up to leadership and questioning INTERPRETATION, not necessarily questioning the Authority of the Scriptures and who wrote them to begin with.
Clear as mud?? 🙂
Sarah – Yes, not spiritually helpful is a good way to put it. And spiritually devastating for some. That’s what concerns me. Not because I am afraid of people thinking but because so many people are quick to jump on bandwagons without thinking.
Lindsey – I hear what you are saying, but what I am referring to is definitely more than just questioning certain interpretations. It is about questioning the very validity and soundness of the Bible. I’m thankful you didn’t name names because that isn’t my intention here. Some are blogs that probably aren’t read by a lot of the women that visit here. But things have a way of working themselves through blogland eventually so that is why I raised it.
I have never believed in Sola Scriptura. It seems, by its very nature, to be an extra Biblical doctrine. Could you direct me to a website or resource that could explain this? I’ve looked online, but all I seem to find in my limited time are very virulent sites that are not written with clarity or charity.
I do believe Scripture is authored by God, through the Holy Spirit, written down by men. It is accurate and inerrant. I just have never seen that it is the sum total of instruction – that is, all one needs is to pick up a Bible and read it, and one will understand the fullness of Christian doctrine.
Thanks for any help understanding this that you can send my way!
Oh yeah, we’ve noticed this a lot over the past 2 years. The biggest culprit (IMHO) are the Oprahs of the land. They talked about Christianity, and even “Jesus” then add, or delete, or modify, the scriptures. It’s become worse over the past 6 months down here, in my own experience.
Milehimama – You know, off the top of my head I don’t because it isn’t a topic I have researched a lot online. Maybe someone else will and I’ll try to find out from someone else who might have an idea of something to recommend. 🙂
Milehimama – sola scriptura… means that scripture alone stands. God’s word is God’s word. Saying that one needs more than God’s word means that God is not sufficient. But I’m not so good at explaining it all. some resources you might want to look can be found at monergism ministries. and here for a basic overview of what sola scriptura is and is not . Hope you find those links helpful.
Sally… have to say, haven’t noticed what you’ve noticed but then again we may read different blogs regularly. 🙂 Hope you don’t mind that I attempted to help Milehimama out. 🙂
Sallie,
This trend doesn’t seem to be impacting the blogs I personally read (which I have cut back on lately anyhow), but I agree that it is troubling! I would say that I’ve noticed it as a cultural trend in practical conversations. People telling me that the Bible’s statement concerning x couldn’t possibly be relevant today because of how our culture is now, how its so different. That sort of thing. But usually this reveals to me a simple resistance to God’s Word–a desire not to submit to a portion it, so the reader decides it isn’t “relevant.” Notice they didn’t decide that I’m wrong, or that my interpretation is wrong. That would be one thing. We can disagree within the church on a number of things. My concern is the decision to dispense with God’s Word altogether.
So sad. 🙁
Thanks for the heads up.
I think that Wikipedia explains the concept of Sola Scriptura quite well:
The only thing that concerns me with this explanation is the ‘Scripture interprets Scripture’…which almost seems to suggest that we don’t need the Holy Spirit in our lives to lead us into the truth of what the scriptures are saying. Although I do believe the the scriptures must be turned to to confirm whether a certain teaching/preaching/belief is correct…you know you read or hear a teaching you feel uncomfortable in your spirit and you check the scriptures…the ‘Berean way’ if you like.
Does all that make sense? 🙂
I know what it is, I just don’t understand why it is a founding tenent of Protestantism. I think Jesus gave us a church. After all, who told us what the Bible even was/should contain? Someone (the church) decided that the Gospel of Thomas, etc., was not Scripture.
The church and Scripture must always agree (how could they not? The church is guided by the Paraclete, and the Scriptures were inspired by the Holy Spirit.) I don’t think you can lock someone in a room with a Bible and have them emerge as a mature Christian, but plenty of illiterate people have become great examples of the Chrisitan faith.
actually people can believe just from reading the bible. They can. 🙂 It all depends on how the spirit of God works in their hearts. If they hear the call of God from reading the scriptures, they can learn and grow JUST from reading God’s word.
Is the church helpful? yes.
But it is not equal to, or greater than God’s word. It is scripture which is the highest authority, everything else is secondary and subject to correction by God’s word. Doesn’t mean that the church, our traditions, our learning is all unimportant but that God’s word is supreme. Check out this article… james white is WAY more articulate than I am. 🙂 I hope it helps you gain some further understanding.
Ladysown,
James White’s article is exactly what I am talking about when I say I have not found an article that explains the doctrine of Sola Scritura with clarity or charity.
I stopped reading after twenty-fourparagraphs of misrepresented Catholicism, and not a single actual reason to believe Sola Scriptura. He may have eventually gotten to the point.
I guess I’m looking for a better explanation than “Catholicism is a deadly heresy, therefore Sola Scriptura is correct.”
Milehimama:
How about: “Catholicism is a deadly heresy, therefore Sola Scripture is correct..BECAUSE I SAID SO!” 🙂 LOL
I have the same questions. We all pretty much know the protestant reformation happened and when it did, the baby was thrown out with the baptismal water. Timeless traditions were completely stopped (even Jewish customs that Jesus himself most likely participated in were thrown out over the years, pre protestant reformation) because everyone was afraid of looking “too Catholic.”
To me, evangelicals and fundamentalists shouting Sola Scriptura! is nothing more than ill-informed people scared of the Catholic church and the old traditions.
For me and our family, we give tradition a weight in our faith journey to the Cross. It doesn’t get the same weight as Scripture, no, but it does bear a place and time in our lives. It doesn’t make me disbelieve or discredit the scriptures at all. It just means I choose to worship and believe in tradition too.
(and I’m NOT Catholic, how bout that???)
Lindsey – Are you really sure you want to say this:
I highly doubt that you think all people who value Sola Scriptura are ill-informed and scared of Catholicism.
but I guess what it comes down to me is…I don’t get it. Saying that anything is equal to or greater than God’s word is saying that God, in and of himself, is insufficient. It for me is not anti-catholicism. I happen to like many Catholics..I don’t get the praying to Mary thing, but confession to a priest holds some merit for me…not for forgiveness factor because scripture teaches that forgiveness comes from God but for that accountability factor. But not believing Sola Scriptura… scripture alone as the means of FAITH. that is what I don’t get. So help me to understand then how not believing in Scripture alone doesn’t discount God one iota. Doesn’t in any way put God in “man’s debt” to explain himself clearly through people HE chose to write down his very own words?
The canon was chosen by the early church fathers…they were all the books that they all or most agreed were from God and were scripture (the books that they were most unsure about that are included were Hebrews, James, Revelation and Jude I think). Peter spoke of the letters of Paul as scripture.
Does your spirit not soar when you read scripture? Does your spirit not testify to the truth of it? Just like those early church fathers the Holy Spirit within us testifies to the truth of the scriptures. Why worry about whether there is more? Have we not enough in Jesus Christ? Do you not think that God would have told us years ago if there are more scriptures?
The Gospel of Thomas does not remain in entirety and is false teaching – only a cursory read will have your spirit feeling pained – read it you can find it on a site called Early Christian Writings. Therefore, using the example of the Gospel of Thomas, it was rejected because it was not the words of God but of man. God also has not preserved the Gospel of Thomas…or the Gospel of Mary (and many others) so obviously they either aren’t truthful or aren’t to be used as scripture – otherwise God would have made sure they were preserved for us to read. There are some books like the Book of Enoch that are useful to read but they have been so mistranslated and bits have been added at later dates that it is hard to see what Jude for example would have had…therefore we can’t treat it as scripture because even though parts were obviously accepted as true (but not scripture) by the New Testament writers we can’t accept it totally as scripture, just an interesting book…for example a Christian writer may write beautiful books about the truth of God but it isn’t scripture.
Yes the church is Christ’s body here on earth. Yes it is possible to be a Christian without the Bible, for before the canon was agreed there were Christians. There are people in the world who can’t read or who have no access to Bibles but they are Christians. But the Word of God is living and active and if those who cannot read or have access to Bibles could just get to God’s Word somehow it would be wonderful…to read those scriptures of old is just like drinking living water when we read in the Holy Spirit.
The difference between the church being the foundation of the truth and the lie that the church can just make up doctrines outside of the truth of the scriptures is that the church must uphold the Word of God…where do we find the Word of God? In the scriptures and through Jesus who lives in our hearts – He is the Word of God…and would the Word of God in our hearts ever contradict the written Word of God? Never.
The reason Sola Scriptura arose was partly due to the false teaching of the Catholic church at the time. I am not bashing Catholics but it is a historical fact. Luther discovered that he was saved by grace from the scriptures…not by works…it set him free from what he had been taught by the church. Before that he had even been climbing up the church steps on his knees as penance for his sins saying a prayer at each step – because that is what the church had taught at the time! He also found how sickening the teaching of the Catholic church at the time regarding indulgences was – where even the poorest were told that everytime they paid money to the church one of their relative would be released from purgatory. Such a lie! This is a rather shortened explanation of how Sola Scriptura started, those who followed on from Luther were so concerned that such lies could be forced on the people by the church that they took the only book that is complete truth – the Bible – and said from then on we base our lives and worship on this book and not what man has concocted in the church. Like the Bereans of old it protects the people from lies being taught as truth.
Hope all this makes sense.
Sorry Sallie no more epic comments I promise!! I just had to check my facts about the Gospel of thomas as it’s awhile since I read around the subject…it exists in 3 Greek fragments…it wasn’t discovered until 1945…it was resoundingly rejected by the early Christian church as gnostic.
🙂
Sarah – I don’t mind the epic comments. I’ve decided to leave this post open to comments as long as people are interested in discussing it. I just won’t be joining in because I don’t have the time or energy. But feel free to discuss amongst yourselves. 🙂
Lol I know what you mean Sallie, very time consuming (lol the length of my comment proves that!). Plus no doubt someone more scholarly than I can put up a super argument as to why I’m wrong – so the discussion could go on foreeeevvveerrr! Keep our eyes on Jesus, much more uplifting.
Hugs.
Okay Sallie I will recant. I will say MANY instead of ALL fundamentalists/evangelicals think Sola Scriptura is a good defense against Catholicism.
So, I’ll go on record as changing my original statement from ALL to MANY. And how many is many? Alot? LOL 🙂
And to add one more point before I stop :)……
For many/some (but not all!) evangelicals/fundies, Sola Scriptura is a buzz word they throw around and don’t really understand.
Even in the internet/blog scheme, I see people making Sola Scriptura buttons and what is next? A Tee shirt?
I’m not anti-Sola-Scriptura. As I said WAAAAY up above, I’m thinking many of the believers are questioning people’s interpretations more than they are the authority of scripture alone. But that is just my personal position in the matter. It’s worth about .02 cents.
If sola Scriptura is the only valid source of instruction God has given us, then from Scripture alone please explain the correct view of baptism. It is because of sola Scriptura that we have so many denominations with different interpretations. Who’s right? Who can interpret correctly? Does it matter? I believe it does, which is why I am exploring the church’s history to see why we came to be where we are.
We have Paul saying it is by grace that we are saved, through faith. Not by works so that no one can boast.
We have James saying that faith without works is dead.
We have Jesus saying that that those who fed the hungry, clothed the naked, visited the imprisoned and so forth will inherit eternal life. But those who didn’t will inherit eternal damnation.
When interpreting the Scriptures by themselves, one can get a bit confused. Some things are a mystery that no one can totally understand, but all doctrines can’t be that way or there is mass confusion. the Catholic Church has had 2000 years to sort this stuff out. I’d say they might be worth an honest listen. Their ways are so foreign to us Protestants. But if you look back to the early church fathers’ writings, you see that the Catholic Church is the very image of early church worship.
As John Henry Cardinal Newman once said in his book, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, “To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.”
To keep things in context, here is why he said this (text found here):
Let them consider, that if they can criticize history, the facts of history certainly can retort upon them. It might, I grant, be clearer on this great subject than it is. This is no great concession. History is not a creed or a catechism, it gives lessons rather than rules; still no one can mistake its general teaching in this matter, whether he accept it or stumble at it. Bold outlines and broad masses of colour rise out of the records of the past. They may be dim, they may be incomplete; but they are definite. And this one thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches, whatever it omits, whatever it exaggerates or extenuates, whatever it says and unsays, at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this.
And Protestantism has ever felt it so. I do not mean that every writer on the Protestant side has felt it; for it was the fashion at first, at least as a rhetorical argument against Rome, to appeal to past ages, or to some of them; but Protestantism, as a whole, feels it, and has felt it. This is shown in the determination already referred to of dispensing with historical Christianity altogether, and of forming a Christianity from the Bible alone: men never would have put it aside, unless they had despaired of it. It is shown by the long neglect of ecclesiastical history in England, which prevails even in the English Church. Our popular religion scarcely recognizes the fact of the twelve long ages which lie between the Councils of Nicæa and Trent, except as affording one or two passages to illustrate its wild interpretations of certain prophesies of St. Paul and St. John. It is melancholy to say it, but the chief, perhaps the only English writer who has any claim to be considered an ecclesiastical historian, is the unbeliever Gibbon. To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.
JHCN’s book containing this quote can be read here.
Look into history all the way back to the early church and see what you find. You might be surprised.
Actually, I do not find this to be true for every word of Scripture I read. Certain parts of Leviticus, for example, do not exactly make my spirit soar! But I *do * read it, not because it makes me feel good, but because ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ. I think it is very dangerous to equate Truth with “soaring feelings”, “burning in the bosom”, etc. (There are other Scriptures that ARE inspirational, but not *all* Scripture is totally uplifting to me, personally. I like Psalm 27 and John ch. 1, ch. 3 and ch. 6 especially.)
I know, that for myself, I have been absolutely convinced through “feelings” that some things were absolute truth (I was engaged to someone else before I met my husband, for example). You cannot discern Truth solely through feelings. Additionally, I couldn’t even read many of the works that were rejected as Scripture even if I wanted to because they were not preserved the way the Bible was.
I do think we have enough in Jesus Christ. I just do not think that He is contained solely and completely in the 66 books of the KJV.
And, BTW, Catholics do not believe we are saved through works. We believe that we are saved by God’s grace alone. I don’t really want to hijack Sallie’s comment forum, though, so if anyone wants to continue a discussion about this please e-mail me or just comment on my blog. I really do want to know why Sola Scriptura… my husband is a Baptist and he can’t really explain it to me, he just knows he believes it. So any help is appreciated. I am an adult convert to Catholicism, and became a convert from the catalysts of a Jack Chick tract and a Southern Baptist Bible Study (specifically, Henry Blackaby’s Experiencing God).
I also don’t get Sola Scriptura being taught in churches that have a developed doctrine of the Trinity, Altar Calls, etc. because those aren’t explicitly in the Bible either. (I do believe the doctrine of the Trinity IS Scriptural, but it is implicit, not explicit.)
Milehimama points out that the Trinity is scriptural, but it and other things we Protestants take for granted was only put into place as a doctrine through church councils. The Church formed the doctrines many of us espouse.
About the faith vs. works thing, many Scriptures hinge receiving eternal life on works. Look them up. Yet we are told by Paul, et al, tthat we are saved by faith. Like I said, Scripture alone can be confusing. The Catholic Church teaches a “both/and” view rather than an “either/or” view, so I am finding. We can’t ignore some Scriptures just because they seem to contradict others. We must take them all in.
One source I’ve found very helpful is Dave Armstrong’s blog. He writes exhaustively on many things we Protestants are interested in. He speaks on the both/and, either/or issue here.
Ok, I cannot let some of these comments go by unaddressed. They are just too important. While I realize this is not a popular thing to say, the differences between the teachings regarding salvation in the Roman Catholic church and the Protestant churches are profound. To somehow reduce this discussion to Protestants being unwilling to study and accept church history/tradition misses a huge part of the entire reason there was a Reformation in the first place. I will share this which I think is helpful.
From Grace Unknown by R.C. Sproul:
I realize what I am about to say is going to greatly offend some people, but I could not live with myself if I did not say it. I have to answer to God for what goes on here at AGH and to pretend that some of these comments are ok by not responding to them might confuse some people who come here. People might wonder if by not responding am I in fact agreeing with them to let them go unchallenged. I can’t do that.
Catholicism is not something for a Protestant to “dabble” in because the Roman Catholic church has an interesting history and tradition. Either you fully embrace Roman Catholicism or you don’t. There isn’t a middle of the road when it comes to salvation. They are two completely different views of salvation. Obviously I am not Catholic and I do not believe the Catholic view is correct. For a Protestant to embrace the Roman Catholic view of salvation means that you now believe your salvation is dependent on the Roman Catholic church. Period. There is no in-between, folks.
I’m closing the comments for fear of where this might go now. Call me a coward, call me unwilling to discuss, whatever. But I do fear for people and what I see.
Here is an interesting link, the story of a former nun who found faith in Christ.
May God bless each of us with the wisdom we need in our journey here on earth.