Understanding Scriptural Interpretation
Run this Graphic before EVERY show this year:
This program is being presented in an effort to investigate all Christian truth-claims by comparing them with a contextual understanding of the Bible and its original intent. We are not interested in supporting or promoting any tradition, person, practice, culture or denomination that stands contrary to this reasonable and contextual approach to scripture. Nothing is so sacred that it is exempt from scrutiny. Nothing so popular and accepted that it won’t be discarded if found wanting and unreasonable. This is Heart of the Matter . . . where we make every effort to worship God in Spirit and Truth.
Show 13 439 Sola Scriptura Part V
March 31st 2015
Live from Salt Lake City, Utah
Examining Sola Scriptura
This is Heart of the Matter. Where we do all we can to try and worship God in Spirit and in Truth. I’m your host, Shawn McCraney.
Okay remember, May 5th, right here in the HOTM studio, we’re going to have Five Point Calvinist Extraordinaire and founder of CARM – Matt Slick in the house to teach us what Calvinism really is, and what it’s not. Matt had his folks contact us and requested an opportunity to sort of set me straight on Calvinism – not convinced I understand it properly. Always willing to learn we invited Matt and he’ll be here on May 5th.
Now this is not a debate. Matt is going to explain five point Calvinism and I am going to ask him questions. We’re going to use the TULIP acronym as a guide. We’ll be taking calls too. So, again, that’s Tuesday, May 5th – a two-hour Heart of the Matter special with Matt Slick of CARM. And with that how about a moment from the Word?
Reflections on Ephesians 5:11
RUN FROM THE WORD INTRO HERE.
Often, under the context of “doing church” believers will use Ephesians chapter 5 verse 11 to justify separating company with sinners. Have you ever found this advice strangely at odds with other scriptural themes like: Jesus reaching out to sinners – eating with them and the like – or being patient and longsuffering and the like with others?
Ephesians 5:11 says (standing alone)
11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.
Ever heard that used by believers to cut friendships off if a person falls into sin? I have. But let’s read it again, ready?
11 And have no fellowship with (WHAT?) the unfruitful works of darkness (Notice that it says nothing about “people” but speaks of unfruitful works of darkness people do) but rather reprove them (what is the them we are to reprove – not the people – just the dark works they do).
At this point many believers will say: Okay. That’s clear. I don’t attack the sinner but I certainly do attack – I reprove – the sin? Really? Let’s read on because Paul explains HOW – the METHOD – we reprove unfruitful works of darkness. Ready?
12 For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret. 13 But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light. (Do you know what that says? It says that it’s by the LIGHT we exude, the light we shine, that we reprove dark works). Listen to the next verse. 14 Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.
In other words, when a brother or sister is involved in unfruitful works of darkness, Christ gives us light and when this light shines from our lives it automatically does the reproving. We don’t need to make ourselves the judge and jury and henchmen. God works through our faith and love to reprove those who have slipped. It is grace and love that leads people to repentance folks, not policing with verbal reproofs.
And with that, let’s . . . .
PRAYER PRAYER PRAYER PRAYER
Tonight I am going to use emails to answer some questions relative to Subjective Christianity and the resistance to the Protestant teaching of Sola Scriptura. But first let’s have a word of prayer.
Whenever someone embarks on new territory there is often misunderstandings that crop up along the way and if not taken care of as they come they will take on a life of their own. So we received some EMAILS of late that have indicated that some people are misunderstanding my intent. Add in a number of conversations I’ve had and I’ve come to see that I have failed to make
Understanding Sola Scriptura
Myself clear when it comes to the topic of Sola Scriptura. So let me use some of the emails to address the misunderstandings. The first series of questions come from Pastor Van out of Spokane Washington and the City Life Church:
Before reading his queries, know that Pastor Van and I have talked on the phone together, so I’m cutting right to the question – he understands very well most of what we are doing, but his questions here may help others get there too:
Questions from Pastor Van
In your opinion is the Bible the word of God? Is the Bible able to transform our life with the power of the Holy Spirit, is the Bible living and active in the sense of being Holy Spirit inspired?
- The Bible is the Word of God.
- The Bible is able to transform human life in conjunction with the Holy Spirit.
- The Bible is living and active in the sense of being Holy Spirit inspired.
Are the writers of the New Testament considered to be equal with the writers of the Old Testament in the sense of being inspired by God?
- The writers of the New Testament were as inspired as the writers of the Old – certainly.
- But the application is different. The writers of the Old Testament certainly spoke of their times and times to come and such things were fulfilled in Christ. The writers of the New Testament spoke of His arrival and to things happening in the church then. The fact that all writers were inspired does not transfer over to us as written law. The scriptural narrative has application for us today but was NOT written by the Holy Spirit with US in mind. Context tells us otherwise.
If (and I emphasize if) you do not believe the Bible is completely inspired by God then why would you read it if it was inspired by man?
- While I do believe the Bible was penned by inspiration I also believe that the men whom the Holy Spirit worked pulled from their own views and skills and ideas and purviews to pen the words the Holy Spirit moved them to write.
- In other words I believe the men God chose to inspire added their respective flavor to the words written.
- This is not a bad thing or deleterious issue. It just is.
I completely understand and agree you're teaching on the Holy Spirit. But I also teach that the Holy Spirit can never contradict the word of God. I would teach that the Holy Spirit and the original writings of Scripture are equal–would you agree with that?
I would suggest that the Holy Spirit is superior – but in a few limited ways.
Take the two – the Holy Spirit and the written Word of God. Then choose one to govern the world since the Pentecost. Which:
Would you choose – think about this? For me it would be the Holy Spirit hands down for the following reasons:
That’s all most of the early church ever had, it’s all most of the church between 70AD and 1550 AD had, it brings love and peace and unity where the Word creates division.
I would suggest that the Holy Spirit is irrefutable whereas there are a thousand ways to Sunday to interpret the Word (especially when we consider original mss, ancient languages, modern languages, modern translations, and the like. Finally, the Holy Spirit, when in full force causes people to love – that’s its fruit.
The word – all alone – causes people to divide. Doctrine does not save, and knowledge is limiting, but love cannot be beat – and that is the fruit of the Spirit.
For me to say that people should only depend on the Holy Spirit and not the Bible as the Word of God (but that it's just a good book to learn from) it is very easy for people to come up with all sorts of weird stuff. Joseph Smith would be the greatest example of the last couple hundred years.
Importance of the Bible and the Holy Spirit
This brings me to a very important but greatly misunderstood point in our discussion of Sola Scriptura. I have NEVER EVER suggested we do away with the Bible in the least. For some of you I am sounding like a broken record but I take the Bible hand in hand with the Holy Spirit.
God did not send Jesus in spirit alone. He sent Him as the visible Word full of Spirit and truth. He has not left us with Spirit alone.
The Role of Spirit and Scripture
– but the visible Word. I accept this, love this, embrace this and see this as God’s way of giving us two witnesses which together bring us as humans closer to Him. All I am suggesting is the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is a fail, in part because it by virtue of its name excludes the Spirit. I think we would all be better believers if we said Spirit primary, text and printed word secondary. Not disgarded. Not omitted. But placed in a secondary position to the Spirit whose fruit is love.
Got an email from Aaron S. that added to my frustration as it said: You took 2 Corinthians 3 out of context. And by the way, you are using the scripture to support your positions. Again – hear me – I believe in the written word – listen – as much as God believed it was important to put His Son in flesh. I use the word to support my positions. This is not hypocritical or counter to all I am saying.
Unity and Interpretation Differences
Last week we had a caller come in and make a stance of the import of the written word. Let’s return to this exchange for a moment. Ready? Let’s say that there are four people standing in the back of a non-denominational church after service on Sunday and they have all been in the Word for twenty years plus.
One man believe that any mode of water baptism OUGHT to be received by every Christian. Another believes water baptism by immersion MUST be received by ever Christian. A third believes water baptism ought to be performed on children, and the fourth rejects the need for any gentile to ever be baptized in water.
Our caller insisted that these four men continually go back and let the word decide for them the truth but twenty years has not brought them to unity in the faith so we know a biblical confrontation is not going to change minds. All these men love the Lord. They all teach salvation by grace through faith.
WHAT PREVAILS? Or what OUGHT to prevail between them? Our caller repeated: “They need to get back into the word.” This was his sola scriptura response. So forget our characters being individual men. Let’s say that at the back of the room were:
Churches that are represented are the “Ultradispensationalist,” (who reject water baptism all together) “Immersionists” (like the Anabaptists or Baptists), a Calvary Chapelist who will accept any form of water baptism, and a Orthodox Presbyterian who administers it to kids. These denoms all have scholars. They all have research. They all read the Bible. And they all differ.
The Role of Love in Differences
WHAT TO DO? Again – our caller said, “well, we just have to turn to the word and see what it has to say?” MY POINT is to say we certainly turn to and read the word. We strive to understand it but we recognize that God has NOT made many things abundantly clear, and I would suggest that its because He wants us to get along in love by His Spirit.
So the answer to the four men? Love by the Holy Spirit. Smiles that say you must pursue the baptismal question according to your own conscience but let LOVE reside amidst all men who differ. In other words we need to make the SPIRIT of the WORD primary and Preferential and the Word itself secondary and referential.
One last email from Mike.
Hi Shawn,
First let me say that over the last couple of years I guess, I've appreciated your show and your insights regarding Mormonism. I've learned from you a lot of things about Mormonism that I otherwise wouldn't have known. Let me stop here and point out how often emails and communications come to us this way these days.
“We really, really liked you and agreed with you when you hated on the Mormons. You were so smart, so funny, so intelligent – goodness, God used you. But now that you are picking on MY beliefs you are stupid, failing, a heretic etc. I haven’t changed folks! I’m the same guy, same attitudes, same insights, same world view. I just pointed the focus and scrutiny at our own house. And you can’t take the heat.
Anyway . . . Mike says . . .
I've been debating over the last several weeks whether or not to address what you've been saying about Christianity and the Bible, and after hearing last night's broadcast, I thought I'd take the plunge. I'm not
Reflection on The Early Church and Scriptural Interpretation
Even sure where to start, and you've probably heard what I'm going to tell you anyway, but I'll jump right in and see where the Lord leads. I won't address everything you said last night, but I'll respond to a few things that came to mind when I watched your show this morning.
Motives of The Early Church
First of all, ever since you started your shows on Christianity, it seems that as often as possible you ascribe impure or otherwise evil motives to the Christians of the past. Why not give the early church the benefit of the doubt? Here is why I view the early church and everything I see up to the present the way I see it Mike:
- The Word
- Looking at History of its Fruit – remembering that a Good Tree Cannot Produce Bad Fruit.
- Looking at where we are today.
I would end with: "Why would you give the church the benefit of the doubt in the midst of all of this evidence?"
Chapters and Verses in The New Testament
As an example from last night, you mentioned the chapters and verses into which the New Testament was organized and compared that to a deposition, asking why the text had to be broken up and asserting that it was for purposes of argumentation (at least that's how your comment came across to me). I came across wrongly to you. The result is argumentation – same with the Greeks and with Lawyers delineation of their written words. I'm sure those who broke the scripture up into chapter and verse were really trying to make it more manageable and digestible but in the end it has done as much to obfuscate as clarify. I would think that with God had those who wrote sacred scripture write it the way we ought to read it. But this is a side issue to your point. The result was argumentation not the intent.
The Impact of Word Disagreements
You also mentioned arguments about the meanings of words (beauty was your example). Personally, I think this is a smokescreen, as I've never heard anyone accused of heresy simply because they differed with someone on the meaning of beauty in either the OT or NT. I’m gonna stop the comments here for a minute. This is an example of my opinion being maligned and imputed with evil intent. It’s what happens when we have a way that we insist upon and when that way is challenged. I used beauty as an example of how words and their meaning are not easily agreed upon among people – but believers have a hard time disagreeing on the fruit of the Spirit. The writer's very arguments against my use of this example PROVE the point I’m attempting to make. Words divide!
But he goes on: "As an example, I remember watching your 'Inquisition 2014' with Jason Wallace (a Presbyterian) and Dale Finley (a Free Will Baptist). According to Brother Wallace, those two are friends and brothers in Christ. One practices foot washing (if Brother Finley holds to traditional FWB teachings) while the other doesn't (I've never heard of a Presbyterian church that does). So there are things on which Christians can differ that don't necessarily cause division."
Let me stop here again. Our viewer uses an example of two brothers who have found it within themselves to NOT LET divergent practices separate them. I’m all for it, Mike. This was my point on the use of beauty. Some will define it and appeal to it in very different ways – but what presides – how people DIFFER or if they Love.
Scriptural Disputes
He adds: "Yes, people argue about the most ridiculous things because we are sinners, and this is true even if one is born again. However, most legitimate scriptural disputes can be settled with literal, historical, grammatical, and contextual study of Scripture."
Okay, now I have to first readily embrace this line from Mike but point out that the number of denominations and variant points of doctrine among them prove differently. In actuality, the most legitimate scriptural disputes CANNOT be settled with literal, historical, grammatical and contextual study of scripture. You are certainly allowed to think this and be seen as a brother in faith but the claim is comedic.
Greek is important for the study of the NT. The NT was written in a particular language and in a particular context. The apostles didn't need to go to seminary to study Greek, because they already knew it. The Bible is more than just a book, but it's a book nevertheless. It amazes me the number…
Importance of Original Biblical Languages
Many Christians highly value the importance of pastors knowing the original languages of the Bible, similar to how they would expect a professor teaching French literature to know French. Yet, many churches today overlook this aspect. My calling is to teach the Word, and I regularly refer to the original language as part of my commitment.
While scholarship aids in understanding the Word, it is not everything, nor does it resolve differences. The solution lies in the Spirit, which embodies love rather than intelligence, education, or words. It's crucial to not get entangled in debates that deviate from this truth. Traditional methods have led to problems counter to what scripture teaches.
Contextual Understanding of Practices
5
You brought up the Lord's Supper and posed several questions about its proper observance. While the context should guide these discussions, universal agreement on practices is elusive. This underscores the need to appeal to a higher authority—the Holy Spirit of Love—to resolve disputes.
6
Sola Scriptura, the doctrine of scripture alone, is more than a Calvinist belief; it is biblical. Jesus and the apostles used scripture to communicate God's message. However, Sola Spiritus, relying on the Spirit's guidance, aligns even more with biblical teachings. The Word was never meant to stand alone without the Spirit. Paul's instructions about sharing his letters with other churches, like the one to the Laodiceans, reflect the need for community understanding rather than solitary reliance on text alone. The broader message encourages sharing and collective insight into scripture, which underscores the necessity of seeking guidance beyond written words.
Misunderstandings in Biblical Interpretations
The Ephesians. But bottom line we don’t know. Just another FYI. But having provided it don’t get my intent wrong. The Bible is a gift from God for us today. But we have to deal with it reasonably and by the Spirit.
Addressing Frustrations within the Church
Mike ends his email with: “I appreciate your frustration with the modern church, and yes, there are many things that need to be addressed, but . . .” Now listen to what he accuses me of doing: “But turning the Bible on its head, creating smokescreens, and asserting subjectivism isn't the way to do it.”
A Call for Understanding
Dear God in heaven, help me, help mike, help us all. At with that let’s open up the phone lines: (801)
SPOT HERE
