A Return to Bible Truth?
|
A Return to Bible Truth? |
Bible Truth Communion: |
THE TRUTH REDISCOVERED? When Luther, Zwingli and other Protestant theologians studied their Bibles, they found passages, particularly in the writings of Paul, and in the Old Testament, which seemed to contradict much of what the Universal Church was teaching and practicing. They began to wonder out loud how these important passages could have been forgotten.
Yet the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches held firmly to the articles of faith that the Reformers now disputed. Believing themselves in the right, and in order to convince people to accept their ideas, the Reformers needed to find a Higher Authority than the Magisterium of the Bishops, the Councils and the received Tradition of the Universal Church. They found it in the idea of the primacy of Scripture and in the supposed religious practices of the early Christians. BUT WASN'T IT RIGHT TO TRY TO RETURN THE CHURCH TO THE BELIEFS OF THE EARLY CHRISTIANS? The Reformers argued that this was their intention, but unfortunately, it is not what they did. In fact the early Church does not resemble Protestantism much at all. When the beliefs and practices of the early church are examined through the writings of the first centuries, it looks a great deal more Catholic than it does Protestant. The early Christians were led by bishops, they believed in the Real Presence of Jesus's body and blood in communion, in baptismal regeneration, apostolic succession, penance, confession, prayers for the dead, the role of Mary as the New Eve and as perpetual Virgin. And they did not believe in the sole authority of scripture. BUT WHAT'S WRONG WITH BEING GUIDED BY SCRIPTURE? Nothing. So long as Scripture is interpeted correctly, and is used in the way it was intended to be used. What the Reformers did was to come up with a novel doctrine, entirely new to Christianity, which declared that ONLY the Bible could be used to determine doctrine and practice. Therefore everything else handed down by the Apostles and the Church from the earliest days must be thrown out. Unfortunately, once the authority of the Ancient Church, and Apostolic Tradition have been cast aside as worthless, Scripture becomes capable of many opposing interpretations. Scripture can also be misused, either by selective quotation, or by trying to "prove" or disprove doctrines by their absence. RELYING ON THE BIBLE ALONE SOUNDS VERY CHRISTIAN. Relying on the Bible is not wrong.The Bible is inspired scripture. It's the subtle addition of the word "alone" to this doctrine that is wrong. The implication is that everything else that came down to us from the Apostles, the early Church and its Councils is false and must be ignored. In this the Reformers may well have been influenced by Islam - in which the Holy Book, the Koran, was believed to have been directly dictated, word-for-word, by God, and to be above and beyond all earthly institutions. In fact the Islamic view of the Koran is very similar to the way some Protestant fundamentalist denominations now view the Bible. Actually, despite teaching Scripture Alone, most Protestant churches accept teachings (or traditions) that are not in the Bible. The most important of these is the doctrine of the Trinity. Others include the Creed, the Canon of the New Testament, and festivals like Christmas and Easter. Newer, and completely non-biblical doctrines are also taught - such as banning alcohol. ONE BIBLE - MANY INTERPRETATIONS The Reformers said that the Bible had one clear meaning. They also argued that it taught one clear doctrine - Protestantism. But as new Reformers emerged in the wake of Luther, it soon became evident that each Reformer had his own interpretation of what the Bible meant. For Luther, the Bible told him that the body and blood of Jesus were truly present in the Communion. For Zwingli the Bible said the exact opposite. For Bucer, the Bible approved infant Baptism, Menno Simons disagreed. Calvin believed the Bible taught we had no Free Will and we were predestined either to Heaven or Hell, others bitterly disagreed. Some Reformers believed all property should be held in common, others persecuted them for that belief. The truth is that the Bible is an immense and complex book. There is an infinite number of doctrines that could be constructed based on its various verses. This has been the revelation of Protestantism. 25,000 different Protestant denominations have been recorded in the United States alone. Each one believes that their specific doctrines are based on the correct interpretation of the Bible. SO WHO IS RIGHT? As long as we only have a book to tell us what Jesus taught, the number of interpretations of its meaning will grow and grow. And who is to say which is correct? Confusion and disbelief are sure to spread. SO WHY DID JESUS LEAVE HIS TEACHING TO US IN A BOOK? Actually he didn't. The Bible as we know it did not exist for hundreds of years after his death. Jesus left his teaching authority to the Church. Acts 1.8: But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth. Similarly in Mark 3:14, and 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to preach (not write) the gospel to the world. There is no commandment to write, and no indication that the oral apostolic word died in the fourth century. It was the Apostles who carried Jesus message and passed it down to succeeding generations. The New Testament proceeded from the traditions of the Apostles and the Church. The problem of understanding Scripture, and its correct interpretation, existed then as well as now. How was it dealt with? Acts 8.30: Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. "Do you understand what you are reading?" Philip asked. 31: "How can I" he said "unless someone explains it to me?" So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. From this we can see that the Church carried authority for the explanation and interpretation of Scripture. Why was this? To ensure that the Apostolic teaching remained true, and that the Church - the Body of Christ - remained One. Without this Apostolic unity of teaching, the Church would inevitably splinter into thousands of contending fragments. BUT HOW CAN WE BE SURE THAT THE CHURCH FOUNDED ON PETER REMAINED TRUE TO CHRIST'S TEACHING? Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church He founded. (Matthew 16:18) He also promised that He would be with the Church always till the very end of the age. (Matthew 28:20) He promised that the Spirit would lead the Apostles and their successors in truth for ever. (John 14:16-17) Paul calls the church
the pillar and foundation of the truth, WHERE DID WE GET OUR NEW TESTAMENT? Many writings which later became the New Testament circulated among the early Christians. These included the Gospels, the Letters and the Book of Revelation. Other books were also used in churches, including the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas and other Gospels and Letters. Only in 367 AD did the Egyptian Bishop, Athanasius compile a definitive list of 27 writings, selected from the rest, which became the books of the New Testament. This list was confirmed by Pope Damasus at the Council of Rome in 382 AD, and again by a Church Council in Carthage in 397. No doubt the Holy Spirit was acting through the Church. But it was the Church that made the Bible. The Bible did not make the Church - as is often implied. BUT SURELY CHURCH TRADITION IS MAN-MADE AND HAS NO VALUE? It depends what you mean by Tradition. Modern traditions that grew up in recent times may have little value. But remember that the early Church was a persecuted body, and had no official New Testament until the 4th Century. Many of the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles must have been passed on by word of mouth. This is confirmed by Origen, who died in the first Empire-wide persecution of Christians in 254 AD. He wrote this: "The teaching of the Church has been handed down through an order of succession from the apostles, and remains in the churches even until the present day. That alone is to be believed that is not at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition." Church Tradition was clearly very important then - and still is now. Nowhere is it stated that all God's revelation comes to us in written form. That is a recent human tradition. As said earlier, the doctrine of the Trinity is accepted by all Christian Churches on the basis of Church tradition. The Bible actually acknowledges the role of Church Tradition. 2 Timothy 2 2 And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others. (NIV). 2 Thess 2: 15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us. (NASB). 1 Cor 11: 2 Now I praise you because you remember me in everything, and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you. (NASB). The Tradition and teaching of the Church thus has a high value, which should not be lightly cast aside. Protestant churches often not only cast that knowledge aside but fail to properly use or prioritise Scripture. WHAT DO YOU MEAN? The Bible is a vast book. It contains a great many passages which can, when compared with each other, seem to be saying opposing things. In such cases we must look at the Bible as a whole to determine the truth. When we study the Bible we look not at individual verses or even books, but at the entire message the Bible is conveying. We also give some parts priority over others. Christians interpret the Old Testament in the light of the New Testament, giving priority to the New. The Jews gave priority within the Old Testament to the Books of Law over the Books of the Prophets. Surely then, when looking at the New Testament, we should put the greatest weight on what Jesus actually teaches? JESUS DOWNGRADED But when I hear many Protestant and Evangelical speakers or I read their works, one of the main things that strikes me is how little they quote of what Jesus actually says about salvation, (see Faith or Works) and how much they quote from elsewhere. Many Evangelical Protestants say a lot about the centrality of Jesus to their faith and doctrine, but then seem to ignore many of His major teachings, such as those on Salvation in Matthew 25: 35-46, and on the Eucharist in John 6. BUT DOESN'T THE BIBLE SAY THAT ALL SCRIPTURE IS FROM GOD? It does. Here is the actual quotation, so often repeated by fundamentalist Protestant theologians. 2 Timothy 3:16 - All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. (NIV) There are two problems with the standard Protestant interpretation of this passage: 1. When Paul wrote this, he could not have been referring to his own writings. The New Testament did not yet exist. Most of the Gospels had not yet been written. Paul was just writing a letter to Timothy. In fact in verse 3:15 Paul states "..from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures.." So it is quite clear that what Paul meant by the Scriptures was the Old Testament writings. So if 2 Timothy proved that only Scripture could be used to form doctrine, it would actually prove that only the Old Testament could be so used, and not the New! In fact many argue that Paul makes it clear in 1 Corinthians Chapter 7 precisely when what he writes is God's direct Word. (v10 -) To the married I give this command (not I but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. (v11) But if she does she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife. (v12) To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): - and the letter continues to its end 2. Nowhere in 2 Timothy 3:16 does it say that the Scriptures Alone are to be used to determine doctrine. The passage states only that the Bible is "Useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." That is the highest claim this verse, or the Bible in general, makes for scripture. We know that Scripture has a high status as a means of handing down God's message to man. But as for written scripture being the sole means of transmission, That doctrine appears nowhere in the Bible. The bible also warns of the dangers of badly interpreted scripture. 2 Peter 3:16 "He (Paul) writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things which are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other scriptures, to their own destruction." ALL THE SAME, THE CATHOLIC CHURCH SUPRESSED INCONVENIENT TRUTHS THAT LAY IN THE BIBLE, DIDN'T IT? Not at all. The Catholic Church decided the contents of the New Testament, and preserved the Christian Bible for over a thousand years to the time of the Reformation. If the Church had at any time at all in that period become corrupt, why did it not just destroy or re-write the scriptures? In fact Church Theologians through the centuries knew what the Bible contained and were not alarmed by it. They knew that the whole Bible, taken in context backed up what the Church taught. Only if certain verses were taken out of their biblical context and given undue prominence would trouble arise. Sola Scriptura Simply Doesn't Work. Sola Scriptura, the Protestant belief that the Bible Alone and by itself is sufficient to determine all Christian doctrine, is clearly disproved by experience. Without the Authority of the Historic Church and Apostolic Tradition, doctrinal anarchy quickly develops. Protestant Churches, ALL claiming to be guided by the same bible and the same Holy Spirit, have come up with almost as many different doctrines as there are churches. The Churches guided by Apostolic Tradition, on the other hand, (including the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches), have, in contrast, maintained a remarkable unity and stability of doctrine and belief over a period of two thousand years. As an example, listed below are just a few of the major doctrines and beliefs that divide Protestant Sola Scriptura, Churches: Infant or Adult
baptism? Now if the Holy Spirit taught each Christian, or even each Church, the correct interpretation of scripture, then surely all these opposed interpretations would not arise? And logically, since the Spirit teaches only ONE TRUTH, all but one of the many thousands of interpretations of scripture that exist, must be wrong. Sola Scriptura therefore DEMONSTRABLY DOESN'T WORK, and that is one of the main arguments against it. |
Surely doctrines such as that of Salvation
by Faith through Grace (see