Posted on 12/10/2009 2:08:47 PM PST by CondoleezzaProtege
When a teacher or preacher speaks of the Supremacy of Scripture he is almost always referring to a doctrine that understands Scripture as the supreme source for truth, and in fact the exclusive source for spiritual truth. In the language of the Reformation it is known as Sola Scriptura, which means that the basis for our beliefs is not tradition or experience or ecclesiastical dictate, it is the written Scriptures alone. And it is true that this doctrine has been eroding and that many religious organizations either completely deny it or dilute its essence.
Luther desired nothing but proof from Scripture when it came to doctrinal truth, and forms of that battle have continued into today. There are many books and messages that deal with the Supremacy of Scripture and the reasons for such a foundational doctrine. And this doctrine has provided a forum for what some call the "truth war" which indicates a battle between those who espouse the supremacy of Scripture and those who in one way or another do not. Some project their opinion with academic reasoning within Scripture while retaining some civility, while others speak and write with acrimony and self righteousness.
I am one who espouses the Supremacy of Scripture, for in the end the opinions of men are just that. But I continue to have a problem with some of those who are the leading and most outspoken proponents of that doctrine. Luther himself espoused the supremacy of Scripture at the possible expense of his own life, however after establishing the doctrinal foundation of Sola Scriptura he seemed to dismiss the core of that doctrine when it came to personal obedience. His reckless language, combined with his indulgence of alcohol, and his overt hatred for the Jews was in stark contrast to his doctrinal espousing of the doctrine of Scriptural supremacy. Without dismissing Luther’s importance in core doctrinal realignment, I suggest he did not strive to live up to the personal mandates of Scripture which are every bit an indispensible part of Scriptural supremacy.
What Luther’s example has shown us is that it is entirely possible to be an outspoken proponent of the doctrine of Scriptural supremacy while denying it wholesale in practice and tone. And such is the case in many quarters of today’s evangelical community. To what benefit is it to aggressively contend for the doctrine of Scriptural supremacy while overtly denying it in the methodology you use to defend it? That scenario becomes a paradox in orthodoxy which dismantles the very doctrine you are supposedly defending. The supremacy doctrine is never limited to the overarching eternal truths concerning the Godhead, it must include the admonitions and commands that are consistent with the personal manifestations of the Incarnate narrative, as well as the dictates of the epistles.
It is indeed counterproductive to argue doctrine in the abstract without the personal revelations, or at least the obvious and genuine pursuit, of the uncomfortable aspects of Scripture which are designed to restrict the carnal “end justifies the means” template of defending the truth. In the end, defending the doctrine of Scriptural supremacy by abrogating the preponderance of Scripture as it applies to love, grace, and personal humility is neither Christian nor Scriptural. It is an overt revelation of disobedience and rejection of the very doctrine you portend to defend. Christ Himself was the antithesis of masculine domination and powerful usurpation, which at its core is why so many were drawn to Him while others rejected Him.
So many today stand on the mountaintop of hubristic judgment of almost everyone who are at varying degrees of doctrinal variance, but are blind to their own Scriptural disobedience. The world knows nothing of our doctrinal squabbles, serious or secondary, but they can see clearly the tone and attitudes that are in direct conflict with the Christ we preach. The cross is the core of our redemption, but it also carries with it the essence of how we are to interact with the world and each other. These “Attila the Hun” expressions of doctrinal dialogues do despite to the Spirit of Christ, and may in fact win the debate but lose the Spirit.
What is our calling? Are we to win the “truth war” or are we to live and project Jesus Christ? And those who claim they are in fact one in the same are seriously misguided. Winning the “truth war” is indeed more about living Christ than it ever was about a round table discussion about doctrinal issues on YouTube that draw “amen’s” from the doctrinal Bourgeoisie and elevate the wisdom of men resulting in the applause of other men. The sounds of “did you see so and so on Larry King, didn’t he really give it to them” are only meant to create a greater self righteousness within those who have chosen sides at the expense of deep compassion for those who are blind and deep gratitude for those of us who have been enlightened by His grace.
We have been sold a doctrinal bill of goods that has camouflaged the truth inside a methodology that is in direct violation of the same Scriptural mandates. Would it be Scriptural to defend the doctrine of the Trinity by murder? Of course not, you say. Then how can it be Scriptural to defend Scripture by self righteousness, demeaning personal attacks, and hubristic dismissiveness? We cannot exalt the supremacy of Scripture if we ignore those Scriptures that apply directly to us.
And here lies the challenge. Are we humble enough to defend cardinal doctrines of the faith in such a way that leaves the outcome to God Himself, or are we to speak in such a way that leverages the battle upon the fulcrum of our own words and the core viciousness of our attacks? God looks after His own Word and His instructions to us are never in contrast to that same Word. Speak the truth in love, says the Spirit, not speak the truth in visceral hatred and that is in itself love. The constant stream of unchristian language directed at the same people over and over again reveals an unwillingness to trust God concerning His own Word and its defense. Is there a God, and has He spoken, and is He able to bring about His purposes in spite of those who have strayed doctrinally, or is He in dire need of our constant attacks and redundant reminders of the same Scriptural shortcomings of others? And is our Biblical teaching so fleeting, so shallow, and so temporary that without the continuing stream of identifying the same false teachers people will stray immediately?
The supremacy of Scripture is not some “pin the tail on the donkey” doctrine that we stick on others, no, it is also high time that we examine our own adherence to the personal aspects of that same doctrine. Doctrinal truth must be lived as well as preached.
Doctrine without works is dead.
annalex,
That pocket sized New Testament would hopefully be more than just “mere assistance”—more than just a helpful read in addition to everything else.
It will have the equivalent value of the air you breathe. By God’s grace and the help of the Holy Spirit. It will save your soul!
The words of GOD, unfiltered. Read, without distraction—will introduce Jesus Christ to you. You will be able to know Him fully as he was meant to be known, loved, and experienced. Once you run out of food, Christ will become your ONLY bread—TRUE bread, as you’ll have no wafer substitute.
You would be able to repeat the words of the great apostle (or “saint”) Paul, himself:
“7 I once thought these things were valuable, but now I consider them worthless because of what Christ has done. 8 Yes, EVERYTHING ELSE IS WORTHLESS when compared with the infinite value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have discarded everything else, counting it all as garbage, so that I could gain Christ 9 and become one with him.
I no longer count on my own righteousness through obeying the law; rather, I become righteous through FAITH in Christ. * For God’s way of making us right with himself DEPENDS ON FAITH. 10 I want to know Christ and experience the mighty power that raised him from the dead. I want to suffer with him, sharing in his death, 11 so that one way or another I will experience the resurrection from the dead!” ~ Phillippians 3
Hi, I’m a former evangelical.
Are you saying that which isn’t mentioned in scripture is a contradiction of scripture?
What "essential doctrines" are those?
John 1:1 is quoting Genesis 1:1 and if the student in the WORD does not understand Genesis then not even the Words of Christ will have full meaning. And this author does not demonstrate he has even an elementary understanding of what is instructed in Genesis.
"We" don't. "Reformers" contrive accusations to flavor their hatred of the Church with "righteous indignation"...simply more vanity.
Not necessarily, but that which isn’t mentioned should never be exalted above those things which are.
So don’t let anyone condemn you for what you eat or drink, or for not celebrating certain holy days or new moon ceremonies or Sabbaths. For these rules are only shadows of the reality yet to come.
And Christ HIMSELF is that reality.
Don’t let anyone condemn you by insisting on pious self-denial or the worship of angels, saying they have had visions about these things. Their sinful minds have made them proud, and they are not connected to Christ, the head of the body. For he holds the whole body together with its joints and ligaments, and it grows as God nourishes it.
You have died with Christ, and he has set you free from the spiritual powers of this world. So why do you keep on following the rules of the world, such as, “Don’t handle! Don’t taste! Don’t touch!”?
Such rules are mere human teachings about things that deteriorate as we use them. These rules may seem wise because they require strong devotion, pious self-denial, and severe bodily discipline. But they provide no help in conquering a person’s evil desires.~
St Paul to the Colossians 16:23
Then why did you say it, and how are you determining "necessary?"
...but that which isn’t mentioned should never be exalted above those things which are.
Where does Holy Writ authorize that rule? Furthermore, who determines "born again" is essential, but "eat my flesh" is figurative?
JESUS *IS* the BREAD OF LIFE. We eat his flesh by relying on Jesus Christ for sustenance day by day. Jesus talks about being the bread of life because HE is the only One that can truly satisfy us and fill us and give us eternal life. He fulfills our every need. That’s what makes him our bread!
*~*
“Publicly, he was saying: I am the bread of heaven. Just like God sent you manna in the wilderness to sustain your life, he has sent me into the world to give life—eternal life. And personally, he was saying to the apostles: Serve me faithfully, and you will never lack what you need. I will be for you everything you need, even in the hour of suffering and death.” ~ John Piper
* TASTE AND SEE *
“Here they are standing in front of the Bread of Life, Jesus Christ—the infinitely valuable, infinitely beautiful, all-satisfying, everlasting Food that endures to eternal life—who gives eternal life. And they ask: What kind of works does God want us to do so that we can have the Bread of Life? And Jesus says, in essence: If you don’t see the person standing in front of you for who he is, no amount of work is going to make him your Treasure. You don’t need to do any works, you need to taste and see. Eat. Believe.
“To all who did receive him, who believed in his name,” is part of what John said in John 1:12. Believing is receiving. Believing is seeing him for the Food that he is, and eating. That is, taking him into your soul, your life, as the all-satisfying, life-giving Treasure that he is.
*~*
IT’S ALL ABOUT CHRIST! THAT’S WHAT CHRISTIANITY IS ABOUT! GOD gave us HIMSELF! Jesus said HE is the way, HE is the truth, HE is the life. Christianity is not supposed to be like every religion where you can remove the founder and still be left with the rules and traditions.
Because in the same passage Jesus said, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.”
So if you have ever hungered or been thirsty, either you haven’t come to Jesus OR He was using a metaphor.
He also said, 63”It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.”
As for ‘born again’ being essential, that is determined by Jesus Christ. “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
Sounds pretty essential to me. “Cannot” is used, not “might not”.
It’s not a matter of anyone condemning me. It’s a matter of people lying about what God says, and the proof of that in failed promises.
God didn’t deliver me from the law of sin and death when I “accepted Christ as my personal savior.” He did it when I ate Christ’s flesh, and drank his blood in a worthy manner.
Some may call righteousness a “work,” but that doesn’t mean God agrees.
Well you were a victim of shallow “got saved?” American Christianity and not the Christianity of the Bible. You were most likely not taught the Biblical definition of “born-again.” And the implications of true conversion.
What you ate was a wafer and what you drank was wine.
Christ is to be our living bread 24-7. He’s supposed to be what fills and satisfies us. Not traditions and sacraments. But HIMSELF.
And we can’t ever come to him just by “saying a prayer.” We have to understand the depths of our sin. We have to understand what truly happened on that Cross. We have to truly REPENT and understand what it means to live drenched in his blood. To think that we can just superficially confess our sins to a person or be washed by holy water denies the power of the Cross and undermines the immense lengths Christ went through to forgive AND *free us* from sin.
That is not what the scripture says. Indeed, we are told five times of the need to eat his flesh and drink his blood, as opposed to "born again" only two or three (i forget which).
papertyger,
by relying on Jesus-the living bread day by day, he wasn’t demanding that we re-enact the Last Supper everyday...He means HE is the bread, even when we’re without earthly bread. HE sustains us—spiritually. To KNOW Jesus personally IS life. He gives us eternal life. He’s the bread that never perishes.
Think about what you would do on a desert island with nobody else around you. No priests, no church, no one. Your days are numbered. Food is running out, there’s hardly fresh water. All you have is a pocket-sized New Testament with Christ promising that He is the Bread of life and that you must eat of it in order to be saved. And you read and read and read about this truth.
What would that mean to you without any “communion” to fall back on? Is it any less relevant now that you’re on a desert island about to face death and the judgment seat of Christ himself?
Unless "hunger and thirst" is the metaphor...
As for ‘born again’ being essential, that is determined by Jesus Christ. “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” .... Sounds pretty essential to me.
And
Verily, verily, I say to you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. [54] Whoever eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.doesn't?
Okay papertyger,
“hunger and thirst”
Let’s see where else the words “hunger and thirst” are used in the Bible.
do you “HUNGER and THIRST for righteousness?” (Matthew 5:6)
are you “POOR in SPIRIT?” (Matthew 5:3)
Is righteousness actual “food?” No. But we are still to hunger for it.
Does poverty in spirit necessarily mean you live in a 3rd world country? No. But we are still called to be poor.
What are you hungering and thirsting for? CHRIST and the cleansing blood he shed for us on the Cross?
or wafers and liquor?
What would you do if you ran out of wafers and liquor? How will your “hunger and thirst” be satisfied?
You are the victim of shallow catachesis, not understanding the meaning and power of the sacrements. That you rail at them and demean them shows you haven't experienced the barrenness of "reformation" Christianity.
Why would I think about a far fetched hypothetical designed to do nothing but read a New Testament I've already read hundreds of times?
>Though it is only a church law, celibacy shows contempt for Scripture
Now this is just plain biblical ignorance.
Precisely my point.
What are you hungering and thirsting for? CHRIST and the cleansing blood he shed for us on the Cross? or wafers and liquor?
Jesus said "do this..." at the last supper. He also said "this is my body," "this is my blood."
I don't obey because I'm hungry and thirsty, I obey because the one who spoke the universe into existense said to. That doing so conveys a grace I never received in all my years as a protestant was icing on the cake...as well as a great motivator!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.