-----------------------
The author is going to tell us about Sola Scriptura, but does not use the Bible to do so. In fact, she doesn't use the Bible at all. No quotes, not even a Bible verse referenced. How can the author be so fervent about Sola Scriptura yet completely avoid it?
The author is going to tell us about Sola Scriptura, but does not use the Bible to do so. In fact, she doesn't use the Bible at all. No quotes, not even a Bible verse referenced. How can the author be so fervent about Sola Scriptura yet completely avoid it?
We think the author is actually vitare Scriptura.
We discuss this topic in more detail here.
---------------------------
---------------------------
What is to be our response when a well-known professing prophet claims that God spoke to him in a dream and told him that he was going to receive a new operating system for the current generation? (We weigh what was said against the Bible.)
Are we obligated to obey a professing modern-day apostle’s book on deliverance ministry that is said to contain fresh revelation on particular passages directly from God? (No.)
When individuals claim such revelations from God while stating to hold to sola Scriptura, how are we to respond? (We weigh what was said against the Bible.)
I find the topic of sola Scriptura particularly relevant right now having acknowledged the significance of Reformation Day. For years, I did not understand this term because I had not heard this term discussed in detail. The Word of God would be stated as valuable, but then personal experiences were elevated and even pursued and revered. Those who could testify of personally hearing God’s voice and having supernatural experiences were viewed as really knowing God. Scripture would be utilized to draw out secret or hidden prophetic revelation said to be revealed by God. It is safe to say that personal experiences were of equal value to what Scripture had to say, though this would be denied. (All of this is anecdotal and has nothing to do with the biblical case for the author's views.)
I find the topic of sola Scriptura particularly relevant right now having acknowledged the significance of Reformation Day. For years, I did not understand this term because I had not heard this term discussed in detail. The Word of God would be stated as valuable, but then personal experiences were elevated and even pursued and revered. Those who could testify of personally hearing God’s voice and having supernatural experiences were viewed as really knowing God. Scripture would be utilized to draw out secret or hidden prophetic revelation said to be revealed by God. It is safe to say that personal experiences were of equal value to what Scripture had to say, though this would be denied. (All of this is anecdotal and has nothing to do with the biblical case for the author's views.)
However, it is important for us as believers to acknowledge and to understand the importance of having a high view of Scripture and what sola Scriptura means. (Does having a high view of Scripture include quoting and explaining it?)
An important point to consider when addressing such claims and teaching is the difference between sola Scriptura and prima Scriptura. Admittedly, I had not heard the term prima Scriptura until the past few years. According to this author, “Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture.” As believers in Christ, we are to rest upon Scripture alone as our final authority for truth. Prima Scriptura is the belief that God’s Word is the primary way in which God speaks to His people, but it is not the only way. Though Scripture is viewed as authoritative under the belief of prima Scriptura, there are other means by which revelation can come, which could also be authoritative. (The author dishonestly slips in the word "authoritative.")
An important point to consider when addressing such claims and teaching is the difference between sola Scriptura and prima Scriptura. Admittedly, I had not heard the term prima Scriptura until the past few years. According to this author, “Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture.” As believers in Christ, we are to rest upon Scripture alone as our final authority for truth. Prima Scriptura is the belief that God’s Word is the primary way in which God speaks to His people, but it is not the only way. Though Scripture is viewed as authoritative under the belief of prima Scriptura, there are other means by which revelation can come, which could also be authoritative. (The author dishonestly slips in the word "authoritative.")
This includes, traditions, dreams, visions, angels, etc. (We discuss the many ways God speaks here.)
With regards (sic) to areas of the Charismatic movement and those who would hold to teachings associated with the New Apostolic Reformation, there is concern that the claim to dreams from self-professing prophets and divine revelation given to a self-professing apostle are undermining the sufficiency of Scripture and denying sola Scriptura. (We hope the author will explain. We discuss sufficiency here.)
With regards (sic) to areas of the Charismatic movement and those who would hold to teachings associated with the New Apostolic Reformation, there is concern that the claim to dreams from self-professing prophets and divine revelation given to a self-professing apostle are undermining the sufficiency of Scripture and denying sola Scriptura. (We hope the author will explain. We discuss sufficiency here.)
Rather, these claims seem to agree with prima Scriptura, and the claim to God speaking to an individual should not be taken lightly. At no point in God’s Word is it understood to be a suggestion or without authority. (There's that idea of "authority" again.)
Those who are leaders within these movements, claiming to hear God and to speak on behalf of God, are speaking authoritatively. ("Authoritatively.")
The question could be posed that if an “apostle” or “prophet” claim to receive revelation from the Holy Spirit on a matter, are we not obligated to obey the instructions? (No.)
If we reject this revelation, are we not risking rebelling against God Himself? (No.
Now we see why the author has continually inserted the idea of authoritative revelation. She is a cessationist, that is, someone who believes that the "supernatural" gifts of the Spirit have ceased. Thus for her the only source of revelation is the Bible. So if someone claims to receive revelation from God, the cessationist rejects it.
Why? It goes like this: If someone speaks a prophecy or has a dream or receives some sort of revelation apart from the Bible, this revelation is "authoritative." "Authoritative" means on the same level as Scripture. "Authoritative" means we are obligated to obey. "Authoritative" even means the revelation must be included in Scripture.
So all this is based on the premise that every revelation is "authoritative." But this is quite clearly not true. This concept is not taught in the Bible.
Let's address this by first noting that everything in the Bible is something revealed by God, but the Bible does not contain everything God has revealed. Otherwise we would have the prophecies of Philip's four daughters [Ac. 21:9], but we don't. We would have King Saul's prophecies [1Sa. 10:11], but we don't. We would have a record of what Barnabas, Simeon, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen and Saul prophesied [Ac. 13:1], and what Judas and Silas prophesied [Ac. 15:32]. But we don't.
We also don't have Paul's letter to Laodicea [Col. 4:16], which means the Holy Spirit chose not to include it as Scripture. The Holy Spirit even did this editing with Jesus [Jn. 21:25].
It is clear that all revelation is not "authoritative" as defined by the author.
It is also important to note that Sola Scriptura was never intended to forbid everything except the Bible. It was intended to subordinate everything to the Bible. Thus Sola Scriptura was a principle originally designed to elevate Scripture above the ideas and practices of men so that those ideas and practices would be subject to the Bible.
Interestingly, while Sola Scriptura is rhetorically employed by the cessationist to forbid every source of revelation except the Bible, in actual real-life practice the cessationist subordinates every source of revelation to the Bible. The cessationist happily reads commentaries, listens to sermons, reads Christian books, and relies on the counsel of the brethren. Therefore, cessationists are not actually Sola Scriptura, for they pick and choose what extra-biblical sources they will accept.)
As someone who came out of the modern prophetic movement, I now understand why having this high view of Scripture is so important. Modern prophecies, dreams, and visions are claimed with authority in the name of God while denying equal authority with Scripture. (This of course is false.)
It seems contradictory to make this distinction, and it seems to agree with the belief of prima Scriptura. If we consider these occurrences, we should understand that God has never spoken without authority. (Of course this is true. But it does not come to bear on the prophetic. God communicates His holy words flawlessly, but we humans are subject to seeing a poor reflection in a mirror [1Co. 13:12]. We prophesy in part [1Co. 13:9]. This is not God's problem, it is ours, which is why prophecy is to be weighed. [1Co. 14:29])
He is God, and we are obligated to obey Him. There are practices within this movement where people are told prophecy can be fallible while the professing prophet is not deemed a false prophet. The issue is said to simply lie in wrongly transmitting what God said. (The author acknowledges this but doesn't even bother to discuss or refute.)
Practices in hearing God’s voice personally are encouraged, and for some, standing on the Word alone for instruction and understanding are deemed religious and dead practices. (This same Word the author values also describes the gift of prophecy.)
I believe the practices done within such beliefs bring an assault to sola Scriptura while leaving people with a poor understanding of Scripture. When personal experiences are desired and pursued above being a student of the Word and growing in fellowship with God by understanding His Word more and treasuring the gospel of Jesus Christ daily, we set ourselves up for error and deception. We become starved sheep. The Protestant Reformation established the five solas, one being Scripture alone, sola Scriptura. God’s Word is authoritative for our lives, and it is sufficient in guiding us in our spiritual lives. The Holy Spirit leads us into all truth, and the truth is found in the Word He authored. God has left us His sufficient Word. We can trust that when we read it, God has spoken.
Excerpts from this article were originally featured here: Why Is Sola Scriptura Important? (christianity.com)
Listen to this in-depth episode concerning this topic: The Lovesick Scribe Podcast: Dreams, Deliverance, and Sola Scriptura on Apple Podcasts
I believe the practices done within such beliefs bring an assault to sola Scriptura while leaving people with a poor understanding of Scripture. When personal experiences are desired and pursued above being a student of the Word and growing in fellowship with God by understanding His Word more and treasuring the gospel of Jesus Christ daily, we set ourselves up for error and deception. We become starved sheep. The Protestant Reformation established the five solas, one being Scripture alone, sola Scriptura. God’s Word is authoritative for our lives, and it is sufficient in guiding us in our spiritual lives. The Holy Spirit leads us into all truth, and the truth is found in the Word He authored. God has left us His sufficient Word. We can trust that when we read it, God has spoken.
Excerpts from this article were originally featured here: Why Is Sola Scriptura Important? (christianity.com)
Listen to this in-depth episode concerning this topic: The Lovesick Scribe Podcast: Dreams, Deliverance, and Sola Scriptura on Apple Podcasts
No comments:
Post a Comment