Scripture – Hermeneutics

Scripture Alone & Roman Catholicism

“It is the original lie of Satan that God, speaking in his Word, needs an interpreter to give man infallible guidance (Gen. 2: 17; 3: 4). This ancient error now is supreme in the Roman Catholic Church. Thus the Baltimore Catechism (Q. 1328) asks:

“How can we know the true meaning of the doctrines contained in the Bible?”

Answer: “We can know the true meaning . . . from the Catholic Church which has been authorized by Jesus Christ to explain His doctrines, and which is preserved from error in its teachings by the special assistance of the Holy Ghost.”

Thus, while affirming that God has spoken to men in the Bible, the Roman Catholic Church teaches that God has not made clear what he means, and so above the Word of God must stand the authoritative interpretation of the Church (which, we are to presume, has an expert opinion about what God’s Word means). This also means that Rome would have us trust in the clear word of man rather than the obscure Word of God.

The Reformed faith views the matter precisely in reverse, holding that Scripture alone expresses divine truth with perfect clarity, and so regarding the Scriptures alone as finally authoritative. The interpretation of the Church (as in its creeds) must always, therefore, be regarded as less than a perfectly clear expression of divine truth, and as necessarily subordinate to Scripture. The authority of creeds is determined by Scripture, not determinative of Scripture. They have authority only if, and to the extent that, they truly are faithful to Scripture.”

G.I. Williamson

The Westminster Confession of Faith: for Study Classes

1.) Now add the reality that if the average layperson needs the Roman Catholic Church to tell him what Scripture means because God’s speaking is so opaque in God’s inspired special Revelation (Scripture) how is the average layperson supposed to understand the uninspired interpretation of what God speaks in His Word as given by the Church without someone else explaining to him what the Church means when it interprets God’s perspicuous word. In other words this reasoning falls into an infinite regress. If man is not capable of understanding God’s spoken Word aright and so needs an interpreter then it is only reasonable to believe that man is not capable of understanding the interpreter of God’s Word aright and so needs yet another interpreter to interpret the original interpreter’s interpretation of God’s Word…. ad infinitum.

Are we to believe that the Roman Catholic Church can explain with more clarity than the God of the universe?

2.) The Roman Catholic church has made so many errors in Church history that it is laughable that they want to insist that they have been preserved in their teachings from error by the special assistance of the Holy Ghost. Whether it is the embrace of purgatory (nowhere taught in Scripture) or the embrace of relics (nowhere taught in Scripture) or having Mary as a co-redemptrix or mediatrix (nowhere taught in Scripture) the history of the Roman Catholic church is one error after another.

3.) It is a pretty good gig to be in the position as an Institution to give yourself the ability to be the one in charge of what God does or does not say. Rome, when it makes this move, has indeed ascended to the seat of God. It really doesn’t matter what God says if Rome is the one with the final authority of what God says and means. Honestly, it seems beyond obvious that with this doctrine of the Church having authority over Scripture that the Roman Catholic Institutional Church has made itself to be God. With this false doctrine promulgated by Rome it is the case that in the Church we live and move and have our being.

4.) This doctrine underscores another doctrine by Rome and that is their doctrine that their is no salvation outside the Church of Rome. This is an obvious implication of the above authority over Scripture. If the Church is God’s final interpreter of God’s mind then it is obvious that to be out of fellowship with the Roman Catholic Church is to be out of fellowship with God. This Roman Catholic doctrine of being the “mouth of God” keeps people who really believe this chained as slaves inside the Roman Catholic whore of a “church.” If one really believed this doctrine one would never leave Rome no matter what demonic deviation Rome might insists that God really says.

5.) Of course this issue was the formal principle of the Reformation. While “Justification by grace alone through faith alone, in Christ alone” was the material principle of the Reformation (the fuse that was lit that set the whole thing off) behind the material principle was the formal principle which was a dispute of where the authority lie in order to determine where to find the mind of God. Rome, following their epistemological doctrine that the Church is the ultimate authority, the Reformers insisted that the epistemological authority for men is the written word of God.

A Few Words On The Relationship Between Old Testament and New Testament

Whereas in the Old Covenant the progress of Redemption covers over a millennium and is concerned with the ongoing process that repeatedly points to the growing understanding of the Messiah and His work, the New Testament is not about process but is concerned with revealing that end point of the progress of Redemption.

It’s the difference between reading a novel in its beginning chapters and discovering and working through the inciting incident (Genesis 3), and the rising action (conflict between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman (Gen. 3 – Malachi), and the climax of the novel where all is resolved (Gospels). Yet, even in the New Testament there remains a progress of Redemption inasmuch as we read and see the movement of the incarnation and humiliation of Christ to the exaltation/ascension-session of Christ. Then from there the progress of Redemption continues with the growth of the body of the ascended Christ (Acts-Revelation).

The OT, thus has a different kind of progress of Redemption theology than the NT because it is process, while the NT progress of Redemption is end point or climax, though as we have seen the idea of redemptive progress is not completely absent from the New Testament. However, it is the progress of Redemption accomplished and applied as opposed to the progress of redemption anticipated.

And yet because the Scripture is written with a proleptic dynamic (the reality is in the anticipatory events) even the progress of Redemption retains a end point feel. Because the Gospel is part of one story that begins in Genesis and because all men throughout history have been saved by the same blood of Christ the Gospel climax that is most illuminated in the New Covenant is already present in the Old Covenant like the promissory spark that will eventually become a five alarm fire.

Francis Roberts Arguing that the Noahic Covenant is a Gracious Covenant

While this (taking the Noahic covenant as a common grace covenant) is a common construction among many today (think R2K) (17th century Puritan) Francis Roberts rather understands the Noahic covenant as an ‘expressure’ of the Covenant of Grace. Roberts will write of a double covenant made with Noah, one before the flood, in which God covenanted to save him and his household, and one after the flood ‘superadded’ to the former covenant. In this second instance of covenanting, several things are noticed that indicate not common, but special saving grace. The first is the occasion of it, that God ‘smelled the sweet savor’ of Noah’s sacrifice, as the outward moving cause of it, which indicates an appointment to Christ and His sacrifice, the inward ‘moving cause’ being God’s ‘mere grace and commiserating mercies’ to Noah. Second, the parties covenanting are the appeased God on the one hand, smelling that ‘savor of rest’ and second, Noah and his sons, and their ‘seed.’ Third, the matters covenanted consist on God’s part that He will not again destroy all flesh. For Noah and his sons, on their part, and especially in reference to the ‘seed,’ to believe God’s gracious dealing in this promise, but more to believe in Christ, the true sacrifice as the one who appeases God’s wrath and restores rest to the perishing and cursed creature, preserving God’s gracious design. Fourth, the token of the covenant, the rainbow in the cloud, concerning which Roberts declares, ‘So then the rainbow which physically and naturally denotes rain theologically, supernaturally and by institution signifies fair weather and security from rain and flood.’ ”

God’s Covenants: The Mystery & Marrow of the Bible Vol 1 — p. 36
Rev. Dr. Todd Ruddell — Preface

Andy Stanley Does His Best Taylor Swift Impersonation

Yesterday while listening to the radio the DJ said that a few years ago it was reported that the pop singer Taylor Swift said something mind-numbingly profound;

“Sometimes I think that Love Songs are just poetry put to music.”

Recently, Rev. Andy Stanley gave us a similar Brainiac type statement while speaking at the Dallas Theological Seminary when answering a question from an interviewer about the historicity of Adam and Eve.

“The foundation of our faith is not the Scripture. The foundation of our faith is not the infallibility of the Bible. The foundation of our faith is something that happened in history. The issue is always, Who is Jesus? That’s always the issue. The Scriptures are simply a collection of ancient documents that tell us that story so when we talk about the Scriptures and especially the reliability of the Scriptures I think that any time that we can tie the Old Testament especially back to Jesus we have done everybody, Christians and non-Christians alike, an incredible service by letting them know you know what you can believe that the Adam and Eve story is a creation myth, so what, who is Jesus? To get to your point, when I deal with Adam and Eve, I am quick to say, “Hey this is one of those odd stories” This is that story you heard growing up about two naked people running around in the garden, and who can believe that? There are many creation myths. But here is why I believe this actually happened, not because the Bible says so, but because of the Gospels, Jesus talks about Adam and Eve, and it appears to me that He believed that they were actually historical figures, and if He believed that they were historical then I believe that they were historical because anybody that can predict their own death and resurrection, and pull it off, I just believe anything they say. So what have I communicated, I have communicated that even if we talk about Genesis and the Garden of Eden, the issue is, “Who is Jesus? And I think any time that we can weave that small little apologetic in our teaching and preaching, it helps our high school students and it helps our college students understand the foundation of my faith is not an infallible Bible, but it is something that happened in history, Jesus came into the world, walked on the earth, represented God, was God, and rose from the dead. And that is a very, very important piece of, a very, very important part of our approach to the Scripture every single week.”

Bret responds,

Here Stanley tries to rip apart redemption from revelation. Sure, the foundation of our faith is something that happened in History (i.e. — Redemption provided in Christ) but I could not know about Redemption apart from Revelation (Scripture). So Stanley introduces a false dichotomy between Redemption and Revelation suggesting that our foundation is the Redemptive act but denying the Revelation that communicates to us the reality of the Redemptive act and its meaning. It is the case that God not only acted in History in the person and work of Christ but also we have to understand that God also speaks (interprets) His acts in History through the Revelation that is in Scripture alone.

So, on one hand, we can say “yes” the “issue is always Jesus” but that issue can only be known to us by the fully inerrant, infallible, trustworthy Bible that has the quality of verbal plenary inspiration. For Andy Stanley to miss this simple truth either communicates that Stanley is a moron of epic proportions or that Stanley is epistemologically self-consciously pursuing an agenda that will leave him and his followers who embrace this thinking in Hell. Since I am a kind person who wants to think the best of people, I’ll conclude that Andy Stanley is a moron or epic proportions.

So, the foundation of our Faith is Jesus who can only be known by the Bible. The fact that Stanley desires to refer the Bible as “simply a collection of ancient documents” tells us all we need to know about Stanley as a trustworthy minister. There are all kinds of ancient documents laying around. Given Stanley’s statement why should the bible as being simply a collection of ancient documents, to be preferred above, say, the Bhagavad Gita which is also simply a collection of ancient documents?

Frankly, I find it amazing that such an idiotic statement by Stanley could fool anyone. But… such is the culture we live in.

I especially love this chestnut from the Stanley quote above;

“But here is why I believe this actually happened, not because the Bible says so, but because of the Gospels, Jesus talks about Adam and Eve, and it appears to me that He believed that they were actually historical figures, and if He believed that they were historical then I believe that they were historical because anybody that can predict their own death and resurrection, and pull it off, I just believe anything they say.”

1.) Which being interpreted means; (My interpretation is in the bold)

“But here is why I believe this actually happened, not because the Bible says so, but because (THE BIBLE SAYS SO IN THE) Gospels. In the Bible in the Gospels Jesus talks about Adam and Eve, and it appears to me that He believed that they were actually historical figures, and if He believed that they were historical then I believe that they were historical because anybody that can predict their own death and resurrection, and pull it off, I just believe anything they say.”

a.) Consider that Jesus learned about Adam and Eve IN THE BIBLE.
b.) Jesus talked about Adam and Eve because they were IN THE BIBLE.
c.) Jesus predicted his own death and resurrection as we learn IN THE BIBLE
d.) Other ancient documents have Jesus saying things that are not recorded in the Bible. Why doesn’t Andy believe those things that are not IN THE BIBLE?

Really, the stupidity here is so epic that one can hardly keep a straight face while typing these words. Andy Stanley has NOTHING on Taylor Swift. Indeed, I am now wondering if anybody has ever seen Andy Stanley and Taylor Swift together in the same room at the same time?

2.) Yes, all of Jesus life, death, resurrection, and ascension has happened in history but the only reason I know this is because “the B-I-B-L-E tells me so.”

Really the guy is a giant Moron masquerading as a Pastor. I can’t believe what has happened to our ministerial corps. It’s like being part of a Zombie regiment.

But not to worry Andy … if the ministry ever goes south for you Pop Music can always use another voice.

Heinrich Bullinger on the Implications of the Unity of Scripture

“For the apostle Paul, speaking to the Hebrews, as concerning Christian faith, doth say: ‘These through faith did subdue kingdoms, wrought righteousness, were valiant in fight, and turned to flight the armies of aliens.’ Now, since our faith is all one, and the very same with theirs, it is lawful for us, as well as for them, in a rightful quarrel by war to defend our country and religion, our virgins and old men, our wives and children, our liberty and possessions. They are flatly unnatural to their country and countrymen, and do transgress this fifth commandment, whatsoever do (under the pretense of religion) forsake their country afflicted with war, not endeavoring to deliver it from barbarous soldiers and foreign nations, even by offering their lives to the push and prick of present death for the safeguard thereof.”

Heinrich Bullinger
From collection of sermons preached in Zurich entitled “The Decades”

Consider the implications of this quote from one of the Princes of the Reformation;

1.) Clearly David Van Drunen and Radical Two Kingdom theology would insist that Bullinger was being irresponsible (and probably sinful) as a minister of the Gospel to be enjoining that Christians fight to defend their homeland and religion. The clear implication here is that the country that is being fought for (defended) is a Christian country. For R2K, it is not possible to have a Christian country.

2.) Similarly, R2K would bring Bulllinger up on charges for implying that a people (nation) can be so Christian that the people of that nation are responsible to take up arms to defend it against those who would overthrow their land and their religion.

3.) Notice how Bullinger draws together country, religion, liberty, possessions and people into one net. They are distinct, to be sure, but they also are inter-related. There is no Christian country populated by Christian people without liberty and personal possessions. They imply one another. For a Christian people (nation) to live without liberty and possessions is a giant oxymoron. A Christian nation is defined by the people therein having liberty and possessions.

4.) I am convinced that one implications of this Bullinger quote is that no Christian should be serving in the US Military since to serve in the US Military today would be to take up the cause to defend an alien religion and a people who have foresworn fealty to Jesus Christ. The current US Military is in the service of a god-state with aspirations to completely overthrow Biblical Christianity. It is in league with the New World Order.

5,) I am convinced that one implication of this Bullinger quote is that Christians should be taking up manly resistance against the current NWO State. We are now being forced to defend, in Bullinger’s words, the enslavement of “our country and religion, our virgins and old men, our wives and children, our liberty and possessions.” If we do not rise up to resist the current NWO state we will be found to be violators of the 5th commandment, per Bullinger.