Bumble -

I see you sitting there, playing a game of Jenga - you have pulled out many of the pieces, and are gingerly testing one more piece...

Jenga -- the game where when you pull the last piece you start speaking in toungues or at least a language not allowed in your mom's house.

From the end of the article:

Our first priority should not be “know your Bible,” important as this may be. It should ever be love and following after the peaceable Galilean Teacher who graces its pages.

This article gives a good critique of Sola Scripture, but it falls apart at the very end. How do we know that we are following after the real Jesus, and not some caricature of Him that we have in our mind based on our own proclivities and propensities?

The Church that Jesus established 2,000 years ago (the one that is still in existence today) is needed for us to know that we are indeed “following after the peaceable Galilean Teacher who graces” the pages of the Bible.

My kids love that game.

Are you crazy? Im not pulling out that piece... no way... too scared the tower is leaning anyways! Maybe I should go get a snack or a refill on my Dr Pepper or... its my turn but can I take a pass?

This one is actually true. I don't care what the endorsements say, though. If a book is endorsed by someone I trust (if it's theological) or whose writing I like (if it's recreational reading), that really encourages me to take a chance on a new author.

Emerging Church? Emerging Church?? Dude, we flew the acorn a loooooooooooong time ago. This nut became a big-daddy tree waaaay back.

Emerging Church. . .

It does make you wonder what they are getting at with the phrase "emerging." Also, I think I read somewhere that there is suppose to be a difference between "emerging" and "emergent" - but that sounds a lot like straining the gnat.

I know... of all the things to comment on, I comment on this...

There is a difference between emerging and emergent and they get a little... not angry or testy... they get a little annoyed sometimes when you confuse the two. If I understand correctly (and I doubt I do) the Emergent is connected to something called Emergent Village (Brian McClaren) and Emergent Village is a subset of what is called the Emerging Movement... McClaren being a big voice in that field it is no wonder the two terms often confused... still not sure I've got it right.

Hey you do that interpretation of tongues well.

What is it about this particular Protestant movement that causes you to think it may have the answer you are looking for?

(If you now know it doesn't have the answers you need, what attracted you to it initially?)

Alright well I don't want to get too sidetracked here, but my thoughts here might fit into this discussion somehow if we don't let it hijack. There is nothing in particular that makes me think they have the answers I am looking for... I don't see it as being more right than us SS Baptists or Catholics if that's what you mean. I suppose mostly I like their emphasis on loving your neighbor, their use of images (as odd as that seems), and the desire to go beyond a "reading your Bible quiet-time" to seek God in prayer. While I appreciate those things I don't always like where they end up in the long run in any of those areas. I like some of their critiques of the Protestant Church culture, but I do not like their diagnosis of the problems nor their solutions.

When I look at my situation I see all other views of Scripture by how they relate to SS. Can't help it. When I start seeing problems in my own view I start looking around to see what else is out there should what I have always believed turn out to be untrue. Its like being in a slowly sinking ship; once you realize you are sinking one of the first things you do is scan the horizon to see what nearby ships or islands you can possibly make it to should the ship sink to the depths of Davy Jones' Locker. The reasons I think my own ship is sinking are easy enough to find in my posts...

As I see it there are only a few general directions to swim in...
1) Less Scripture: A wide category with everything from atheists to agnostics to some mild, liberal Christians and possibly the Emerging movement. Some might say that Scripture really isn't God's word (atheists, other religions, etc), or some might say that Scriptures are good but really don't contain any truth and are just meant for Christian reflection and their truth is highly suspect (some liberals, possibly Emerging... I don't fully understand either so I don't want to put words in their mouth).

2) Scripture Alone: I can just swim around the area I'm in and see what I can find. More Protestant denominations and while certain denoms and individual congregations might be able to improve upon the problems I see they all exhibit the same fatal flaw (if indeed it is fatal) and for me I would be leaving a sinking ship to get aboard another.

3) Scripture +: Scripture is still God's Word and still used to find truth, but it's truth is not found by using it in isolation from other modes of truth or in isolation from other believers. Again a wide category with everything from (perhaps) Methodists (with the Quadrilateral Method... though I don't know much about them so don't take my word for it) and some strong Charismatic groups (who might add prophecy and a voice from God to find truth) to Anglicans to Orthodox and Catholic with their respective views on Tradition and a teaching Church.

So if SS is the problem then to go looking for more options within Option 2 is... stupid.

Furthermore if the problem if Sola Scriptura there are really only two possibilities as to why it is wrong.
1) The Scriptura part is wrong: Scripture as I understand it is not meant to define truth. The sola part will logically die with it.
2) The Sola part is wrong: most of what I understand about Scripture is still true, but Scripture was not meant to do the job alone... basically I've just been taught the wrong way to use the Good Book.

I don't know much really about the Emerging Movement, but I know enough to think that is probably not the direction I'm going to find truth in. However it does represent in my eyes one of the two main alternatives to SS. Overall I like the other direction better...

As far as I can tell, #1 and #2 are variations on the same theme and every Christian I know, as an individual, falls into it to one extent or another. Even people who claim “Scripture Alone” don’t take all the Bible with equal seriousness. They emphasize some parts, and ignore others. Now, as far as “ignoring” certain parts of Scripture, I’m sure they don’t see it that way. They will talk about essential and non-essential doctrines, or that certain things are under the “old covenant”; but the end result is the same… Less Scripture.

This is why we need the Catholic Church. The Church, as the formal judge and standing expositor if its words, gives us the proper balance for applying the Bible to our lives. It seems reasonable to me that there are some things that are core to the faith and some things that are ancillary. It also seems reasonable to me that some things are “old-covenant” and do not apply to Christians. However, I don’t see how the list of these things can differ from person to person, or denomination to denomination. Thus, we have the need for the Church.

Concerning option 3 then, Scripture + … what? I would be interested to know why you think any group other than Scripture + the Catholic Church is a viable option.

Looking into the clarity of Scripture issue and was reading from Grudem's Bible Doctrine in a section called "Why do people misunderstand Scripture?"...

Curious as to your take on that little bit there...

Later on he says

Again... intersting.

And later in a section on the role of Bible scholars...

Perhaps someone can enlighten this for me... I want to make sure I understand him correctly. Is he suggesting that although scholars do not have the authority to decide "what is true and false doctrine" that whomever happens to be in a position of power within the local Church does have the power to decide to "what is true and false doctrine?" Did I catch that right?

I suppose I had never thought much about that before. Our Church is lead by a small board of good men, all of them, who want to honor Christ. But there are some of them that while good men... well I've been a youth pastor at this Church longer than they've even been Christians! And I haven't been here THAT long, only a few years! None of them are bad men but I know them personally and they don't really study much, they don't know much theology... they sort of just go with whatever study we're doing in small groups and whatever books they happen to read or whatever thing they hear in a worship service they happen to like or whatever our pastor says that seems to sound true to them. And more often than not I think they make the right decisions. And no I DONT WANT THAT RESPONSIBILITY!!!! I mean I have more training than them and do more study, but I know I am not qualified to make such judgements.

It just gets tricky because... if they come up with a different interpretation on something than I do, then it almost seems like I have to go with it. They make the decisions, not me. Again, not that I'm qualified to make them. So what if I disagree? Do I leave this Church to find another? Isnt that sort of like rebelling against their authority? Aren't I again saying, "No, I will make this decision for myself."? But what if I stay? Must I always go about obeying something from a source of authority that hasn't got 15% of the knowledge I do (the pastor excluded of course)? And then what about the congregation? What if they are a lot more liberal than our leadership and they decide something else? What then?

I don't want answers to all those questions btw... just processing/venting.

I have never thought much about it before I guess. I used to think that the charge flung at us by Catholics that we were all our own "little popes" was just a silly, name-calling stunt.

I think there may indeed be some truth to that charge after all. It seems that any local congregation has similar powers to the Pope or to an authoritative Church: they can excommunicate, they can set dogma, they can define what is true or false doctrine... that is truly an unbeleivable amount of authority... and one that must exist in every tiny, little Bible Church across America and the world... this authority is repeated thousands of times over!

I'm not exactly sure if we Baptists would agree with Mr. Grudem's statement up there... well I'm not sure we're much better off in the long run. I apologize for the helter-skelter way in which I wrote but I'm under a time constraint and it's sort of just rolling off the tip of my tongue as I write this and I'm quite... well, moved by this thought.

Your thoughts are as always appreciated.

I don't think you NEED anyone else to answer all those questions. I think you know the answers, or - should I say - you know the answer.

*******************
I cannot resist a comment on this.

Grudem: In no case should we think that persistent disagreements on the some subject through the history of the church mean that we will be unable to come to a correct conclusion on that subject ourselves.

Me: On the contrary, that is exactly the case.

Grudem: Rather, if a genuine concern about some such subject arises in our lives, we should sincerely ask God's help and then go to Scripture, searching it with all our ability, believe that God will enable us to understand rightly.

Me: Are you saying that the people who came up with the different opinions did NOT sincerely ask God's help, did NOT then go to Scripture, did NOT search it with all their ability, and did NOT believe that God will enable them to understand rightly? Or, are you saying that numerous Christians throughout history did do all this and yet did not get a consistently correct answer, but if I sincerely ask God, etc. I WILL get the right answer? How can that be?

(Is this fellow still alive? If yes, you should contact him and ask your questions.)

It doesn't seem a very helpful doctrine, does it? I mean, isn't he pretty much saying, “The doctrine of the clarity of Scripture doesn't mean that Scripture is actually clear”? Somehow, I just can't think that's what Tyndale had in mind when he was arguing about ploughboys and Scripture.

It is a doctrine adopted out of necessity, not logic, if you don't need the Church to interpret scripture, the only other option is that scripture is so easy to understand that it interprets itself

The only comment I have for you at the moment, Bumble (and maybe I'll return with more tomorrow) is this:

I love reading these kinds of threads. All they do is ground me more solidly in my faith (ESPECIALLY after reading stuff like what Grudem writes above.. with all due respect).

No offense taken...


My thoughts exactly!


I can't imagine that either! But I also can't imagine how anyone could believe the ploughboy bit when they look at history and see very, very intelligent, learned men who disagree on so many, very complex theological conundrums. It's almost like you can believe this idea in a vacuum, but once you look at history the view of the ploughboy becomes hard to believe (obviously even the ploughboys are arguing with each other). And once you admit that history complicates this belief you get Grudem's admission. And Grudem's admission is... is insane too strong a word to use here?


Sadly I think I might...


I think that tends to be attitude some of us take... but for the life of me I don't know why I ever did now that I think about it.

I was talking to a lady just this week who got into a debate with a friend of hers who believes in God but not going to Church or anything. This lady I was talking to said that it was important to go to Church to hear the pastor because "God gives us pastors so that they can help us interpret the Bible." That statement left me very sad.

It reminds me of the way I was taught to study or write about Scripture in college: read through the Scriptures in question once without reading any books, commentaries, or articles on it at all and only after you've formed an opinion and prayed over it do you read the viewpoints of the scholars and teachers lest they influence you in anyways and become the real authority for you and not Scripture. It seemed like such good advice at the time... I know of several other current Bible studies in our area (perhaps even in our congregation) that also take this line of thought.