The term "sola scriptura" literally means "scripture alone", with the word "scripture" referring to the Bible. So one might naively believe that the doctrine of "Sola Scriptura" means only that which is stated in the Bible is doctrine. But that's not how the Apologetics Industrial Complex define the doctrine. Instead, they add "or that which can be reasonably inferred from Scripture". What that usually means is "we make up our own doctrine and say it's from the Bible". After all, wouldn't it be a shame if they had to admit that some of their "most important doctrines" are actually heresy? Wouldn't it also be a shame if they had to admit that most of their rules on what is or is not "proper" for a Christian are also just human rules? Adding "or what can be reasonably inferred from Scripture" to the definition of Sola Scriptura makes for a very convenient loophole around "do not add to God's commandments" [Deut. 4:2, 12:32].
Sola Scriptura, when correctly defined, only permits doctrines that are explicitly stated in the Bible as a doctrine, and only permits rules that are explicitly stated in the Bible as a command of God to be a command of God. Doctrines that are not explicitly stated in the Bible as doctrine are false doctrines, rules not explicitly stated in the Bible as commandments of God are merely human rules, and traditions that are not explicitly stated in the Bible as coming from God are human traditions.
On the subject of "false doctrine", the definition I use for "false doctrine" is this: "Anything held as doctrine that is not stated in Scripture as doctrine is false doctrine." That is, the teaching is claimed to be a doctrine, but is not. This does not automatically make the teaching wrong. It just means that any claim that the teaching is doctrine is false.
On the subject of "human rules", something being a human rule does not mean the rule is bad. It just means it is either (a) not found in the Bible, or (b) is found in the Bible, but is not stated to be a command of God. There are times where we should be following human rules (such as those discussed in Weaponizing Weakness of Faith), and there are times where we should not be following human rules.
On the subject of "human traditions", not all of these traditions are bad. Any tradition tied to pagan worship is bad by definition, as are any traditions that are part of any "holy days" that God did not declare to be holy, and traditions that are added to any of God's holy days. See Self Righteousness Defined Correctly for more details.
If we go by the rule that only that which the Bible states as doctrine is doctrine, then we lose a lot of what we previously held to be doctrines (many of which are fine as interpretations of Scripture). We also must now consider many rules that we previously held to be commandments of God as merely human rules. And a lot of traditions previously believed to honor God are reduced to human traditions that do no such thing. But we also gain some doctrines that are actually in the Bible, rules that are actually commandments of God, and "traditions" that God actually says honors him.
One of the most notable teachings that are reduced to just an interpretation of Scripture is the teaching of the Trinity. I believe this is the biggest reason that they include "and what can be reasonably inferred" in the definition of Sola Scriptura. Because if the Apologetics Industrial Complex defined Sola Scriptura correctly, then they would have to concede that one of their "core doctrines" is really just an interpretation of Scripture.
There are some who insist that the Trinity is a false god and therefore should be rejected outright. But I believe that it's okay for one to believe that the godhead is triune in nature. However, it is not okay to reject those who reject the Trinity. There are also aspects of the Trinity that contradict what the Bible says. Some use this as a reason for requiring others to reject the Trinity, but I do not. Remove the heretical aspects of the teaching of the Trinity, and you've got yourself a teaching that is 100% compatible with the Bible, even if it is just an interpretation. There is a lot more I could say about the Trinity, but that's for a future blog post.
Another notable teaching that's not actually in the Bible is something called "Penal Substitutionary Atonement" (PSA), which is also claimed to be a core part of the gospel. According to this heresy, Yeshua paid the penalty for our sin so that we could be forgiven. The problem is that Scripture is clear throughout that it is an abomination to knowingly punish the innocent. The assertion I always see in response to that fact is, "it's okay if the person is willing and without sin". This might seem like a reasonable response, but is in fact only pretending to address the problem. I plan to address PSA in detail in a future blog post, but long story short, Yeshua's death on the cross was to take away our sins, not pay for them.
The above two teachings also provide examples of people trying to coerce others to believe what is not stated in the Bible under the pretext that "if you do not, then you are not saved, not a true Christian, or are in a cult". There is a word to describe groups that try to force people to believe what is not stated in Scripture under the threat of not being welcomed into the Body of the Messiah: "cult". Ironic, isn't it?
I am not saying that one has to give up teachings that are not stated in the Bible (unless of course that teaching goes directly against what the Bible says). We all have teachings that are not stated in the Bible and there is nothing wrong with that. One just has to stop calling such teachings "doctrines", and stop trying to coerce everyone into believing them.
Concerning human rules, there are actually some human rules that come from the Bible. For example, wherever Paul says, "I desire you do suchandsuch" or "I require/prohibit suchandsuch", Paul is admitting that those are his own rules. Wherever he quotes Torah or Yeshua (Jesus), or attributes a rule to Torah or to Yeshua, Paul is claiming that the rules are actually a commandment of God.
There are also rules that some claim are in the Bible that are not. For example, did you know that, even though the Bible clearly states that Yeshua (Jesus) is God, there is no rule in the Bible saying that you must believe that Yeshua is God in order to be saved? That sure came as a surprise to me when I searched the Bible for that exact rule. What the Bible does say, however, is that we must believe that Yeshua is the son of God [1 John 4:15], and that he is the Messiah/the Christ [1 John 2:22]. The Bible places a lot more emphasis on believing in Yeshua than it does concerning what we believe about Yeshua.
One of the ways in which a human rule is justified by someone who just learned that the Bible does not actually have that rule is to invoke "the principle". They will say, "the Bible might not say it, but the principle is there". In reality, they are confusing the principle of a hedge around a rule as the principle of the rule itself. The principle of a rule is often stated in Scripture with the rule itself. But when someone invokes "the principle " to justify a rule, it usually means the Bible either does not give a principle, or the given principle is something else entirely. Sometimes, the principle being invoked is found in an entirely different passage of the Bible, but the Bible is actually speaking against it in some way.
Bottom line: if a rule is not stated in the Bible, do not say that it is. If a rule that is stated in the Bible does not include a specific item, do not say that it does. If a specific principle for a rule is not stated in the Bible with said rule, do not say that it is. If the Bible refutes the stated principle elsewhere, it's time to re-evaluate what you believe concerning those rules. By the way, if the later happens, just remember that learning the truth will set you free [John 8:32].
Finally, we have human practices and traditions. And yes, Hanukkah and Purim, are among these human traditions. And just like with human rules, human traditions are not automatically bad. Some can even be quite helpful. The problem comes into play when we treat these human traditions as if they have spiritual significance, or believe that their practice somehow pleases God. And practices and traditions that are rooted in the context of pagan worship are nothing but irredeemable abominations and are always displeasing to God, no matter how much was "sanitize" or "Christianize" them. Likewise with any practices and traditions that are contrary to Torah.
The biggest problem with human traditions comes in the form of "holy days" that Yahweh did not command. Israel made this mistake twice and both times it ended badly for them. Yet most Christians are under the impression that they can do the exact same thing and somehow please God. Leviticus 23 is where we find all of God's holy days. If any "special day" is not on that list, then it is not special to Yahweh. The most blatant offenders of these false "holy days" are Easter (named after the Babylonian fertility goddess), and especially Halloween, which doesn't even try to hide its origins in witchcraft!
Is it wrong to have celebrations on days God did not command? Not at all. Otherwise, we would also have to give up Hanukkah and Purim (among other memorials), and give up on birthday celebrations. Just don't call those celebrations, or they days that they are on "holy". Only Yahweh has the authority to declare a celebration or day to be "holy".
There is one thing to note about the Bible: it's cultural context is Hebrew. As a result, there will be places where the Bible uses idioms that only work in the Hebrew, or vaguely works in the English. No amount of studying the individual words in these idioms will ever lead you to notice that there is an idiom in use who's meaning differs significantly from what the non-idiomatic meaning implies. Sometimes, the Bible has clues that there is an idiom in use, but not always. So Sola Scriptura simply will not work in places where the Bible uses a Hebrew idiom and assumes that you know that it is an idiom and what that idiom means.
To summarize, Sola Scriptura, when defined correctly, excludes anything that is "inferred" or "extrapolated" from being doctrines, commandments of God, or holy days. Even principles applied to certain commandments are excluded if they are not stated in the Bible. And if one follows this rule strictly when teaching others, a significant number of teachings, rules, principles, practices, and traditions, whether good or bad, will simply never be mentioned. When it's not followed strictly, and one is honest about it, then those things not stated in Scripture, if taught, will be clearly distinguished as human teachings that are not found in Scripture.
No comments:
Post a Comment