Book Review: Can We Trust the Gospels?

by Peter J. Williams

The four Gospels found in the New Testament tell the life story of the central figure of Christianity—Jesus of Nazareth. If the history recorded in Gospels isn’t reliable history, then it’s game over for Christians, because outside of the Gospel accounts we know only the barest facts about Jesus’s life.So are the Gospel’s trustworthy? Is the information they contain actual history? Or are they fiction? Are they accurate reports of Jesus’s life or collections of fanciful stories made up by Jesus’s followers after he died?

These are some of the questions Peter J. Williams answers in his little book, Can We Trust the Gospels? He “seeks to present a case for the reliability of the Gospels to those who are thinking about the subject for the first time.” As we might expect, then, this book is short and easy to understand, but still, there is an incredible amount of information and argumentation supporting the basic trustworthiness of the New Testament gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. And the information and arguments Williams chooses to include give the careful reader a blueprint for how to approach other specific objections to the reliability of the gospel accounts of Jesus.

The strongest chapter is the one that looks at the Gospel authors’ familiarity with the details of life in Palestine during the time of Jesus. The Gospel writers, Williams shows, “knew their stuff.” The place names are right, both the well-known and not-so-well-known. Altogether, twenty-six towns are mentioned—Jerusalem, of course, but also many small villages. The bodies of water and other geographical features mentioned in the Gospels are described exactly as we would expect.

And when the names used for the characters in the Gospels are compared to those we now know were used most frequently in first century Palestine, we find that they are right, too. What’s more, the cultural and religious details are accurate.

How did the writers of the Gospels know all these details of life in Palestine during Jesus’s lifetime? They couldn’t google them. There weren’t reference books for an author who lived far away or later in time to use to find out these sorts of things. No, the authors of the Gospels had to know these things from their own experience living in Palestine during the time of Jesus, or by hearing the details from someone who lived there.[1]This doesn’t, as Williams writes, “on its own demonstrate that all of what they wrote is true.” But it does show that they were not “too distant from events to be trusted.”

The weakest chapter, in my opinion, is the one dealing with contradictions in the gospels. Williams chose to focus on the kind of supposed contradictions that I would suggest most people find least troubling—the paradoxical language John uses in his Gospel (or in his other New Testament writings). For instance, in John 8, John records Jesus as saying,

You judge according to the flesh; I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone who judge, but I and the Father who sent me.

I have much to say about you and much to judge, but he who sent me is true, and I declare to the world what I have heard from him.” (John 8:15-16, 26 ESV)

So which is it? Does Jesus judge or not? Any fair reader—one who assumes Jesus (or John) isn’t crazy—ought to be able to see that Jesus speaks this way as a teaching tool to make his hearers think: In what way doesn’t Jesus judge anyone? In what way does he judge them? Jesus wants those listening to him to puzzle over his words and come to a better understanding of who he is and what he came to accomplish.

These aren’t the kinds of seeming contradictions I hear mentioned as objections to the truthfulness of the Gospels. Rather, I think most people are more troubled by apparent discrepancies in the differing Gospel narratives of a singular event, like when, for instance, Luke says there were two angels at the tomb and Mark says there was one (Luke 24:4 and Mark 16:5).

But then Williams is arguing for the basic historical reliability of the Gospels, and not necessarily their inerrancy. A few minor conflicts in eyewitness accounts don’t affect the general historical trustworthiness of the gospels much as long as the basic information about Jesus’s life they contain is similar. But if one of the Gospels has Jesus spouting nonsense, then there’s a real problem with that Gospel’s trustworthiness—or with Jesus’s. Perhaps this is the reason for William’s choice of material in this chapter.

One of the most important points Williams makes is that main reason people don’t accept the Gospels as trustworthy historical records is that there are miracles in the Gospel accounts. This is a problem that can’t be overcome by simply accumulating more evidence.

If you are overwhelmingly convinced of materialist atheism, then it is hard to imagine what amounts of evidence would persuade you to believe in a random and meaningless miracle, a mere anomaly to your worldview.

Every argument in this book can be explained away if one is determined to do so, although it would require many different and complicated arguments. “A far easier position,” Williams writes,

is to make a single supposition, that all of history hangs on Jesus. It is a single and simple supposition, but I am not claiming that it is a small one. It does have huge explanatory power as it accounts for the signs in the Gospels that would normally be taken as signs of reliability, for the genius of Jesus’s character and teaching, for the evidence for the resurrection, and for the correspondence of Jesus’s life with the Old Testament.

This book would be good to give an unbeliever who doubts the credibility of the gospels. It will probably be most useful, however, to a believer who wants to know how to respond to specific questions from a skeptic. It made me cherish the Gospels more as the amazing documents they are. They bear the marks of God-breathed (and thus absolutely true) historical accounts.

[1]The apocryphal Gospels, which were written much later than the biblical Gospels, don’t contain many of these sorts of details, and when they do, they tend to get them wrong.

Three Faces of Redemptive Friendships

     Anyone who has ever had a two-faced friend will probably wonder how on earth redemptive friendships could have three faces? These three metaphorical faces of redemption have little to do with our physiognomy or the physical presentation of visages. Rather, what I’m suggesting is that in our approach toward cultivating redemptive friendships we ought to consider three different perspectives or orientations: 1) toward God, 2) toward self, and then 3) toward others.

      Our first priority to God leads us, as children of the Living God, upward, with open face toward the Lord and His purposes. Dr. John Frame called this upward face the “normative” perspective. He wrote in The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God that the Bible provides the lens through which we see and ought to evaluate who we are, the world around us, and the truth claims to which we hold.

     Thus, by knowing the Bible, we come to better see the character and holiness of God, to understand ourselves, and to interpret our context. In turn, the epistemological cycle enables us to know the Scriptures and God better. As John Knox once stated in an address to the statesmen in his time, “The Scriptures of God are my only foundation and substance in all matters of weight and importance.” Furthermore, Paul wrote to Timothy, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Tim. 3:15-16, ESV). All things begin and end with the Scriptures, our firm foundation in our relationships with others, both inside and outside of the Church. 

     The first face of redemptive friendships turns us heavenward. 

     Next, with the second face or perspective, we ought to examine ourselves and our standing before our Holy God, cultivating an accurate inward awareness. The inward face represents our existential or experiential perspective, by which we come to understand our lives in light of the normative foundation. Experience bolstered by life in the church, under the preaching and sacraments, play a vital role in developing right knowledge of oneself and encouragement to learn and grow upward and outward.

     In terms of the experiential perspective, Frame wrote that every person brings their dispositions, temperaments, biases, presuppositions, and life experience into the act of knowing and experiencing God and each other. In fact, Frame stated, objective knowledge in and of itself is not sufficient, as that would presuppose a denial of our creature hood and thus a denial of the power of God’s Word for us. Therefore, we must know ourselves rightly.

     As John Calvin emphasized the importance of acknowledging our own sinfulness and our inclination toward idols, he taught that our hearts resemble idol factories because we are so prone toward seeking our own autonomy. He further reminds us that faith and repentance are not merely the beginning, but the whole of our Christian lives. It's no mistake that Jesus exhorts us his followers to remove the log from our own eye first before attempting to help our neighbors remove their speck (Matthew 7:1-5).

     Since we have been made in the image of God, the existential face should reflect knowledge of God's glory as it increases through our sanctification. Paul wrote to the church in Corinth, "But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit" (2 Cor. 3:18, NASB). Hence, the second face calls us to cultivate a life of knowledge of self, characterized by a life of believing and penitence, in light of the holiness and love of God (the upward face). In so doing, the Holy Spirit enables us then to effectively consider the outward face.

     Our third face, or outward orientation, represents the situational perspective. This third stance refers to our interactions with external facts, things, objects, and people, in light of the normative and experiential – knowing God and knowing ourselves. It includes acknowledging and understanding history, science, civil law, and other tangible information, along with our own contexts and relationships. Viewing people and things from a situational perspective involves understanding how we express the normative (Truth of God’s Word) in everyday life.  Without a robust understanding of and compassion for our context and the world, our attempts to apply Scripture in our interactions risk failure -- or reversion to a futile status: a resounding gong, an echo chamber, or the reiteration of confirmation bias.

     So, how might this work out in specific situations? First, consider the normative command of Scripture -- the timeless, unchanging moral principle from God's Word. Next, all the normative, moral principle to transform our hearts as we assess our own lives in light of God's character. How does heart knowledge of this principle affect my standing with God, my sin, and my relationship with others? Where do I need to repent or possibly become more self-aware? "But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him"  (James 1:5, NASB).

     Finally, we apply this wisdom to our relationships inside and outside of the church, as a result of our upward reorientation toward the Lord (love of God) and our inward application in our own lives. Include contextual or situational clues such as legal, medical, cultural, and community (local church) practices that impact our decisions, actions, and consequences. Go before God and seek His wisdom. Then, we effectively live outward toward love of neighbor. We are enabled to step out in faith toward neighbor, enacting the great commission, extending hospitality and kindness, and expressing the love of Christ in our spheres of influence.

     In this way, we reflect back to God, His glory and the knowledge of Him in acts of worship. Rather than basing our friendships on worldly wisdom or empty promises as the two-faced friend might, we cultivate redemptive friendships, based on a lasting foundation, with eternal implications.

Review and a giveaway: Is the Bible Good for Women?

Is the Bible Good for Women?: Seeking Clarity and Confidence Through a Jesus-Centered Understanding of Scripture by Wendy Alsup, Multnomah, 2017, 212 pages.

When we think of the Bible and women, what verses come to mind? Titus 2, Proverbs 31, or the book of Ruth? How about the Apostle Paul's teachings on marriage in Ephesians and Colossians? While we may gravitate towards these passages, there are much harder ones to deal with. What do we make of the laws concerning uncleanness? How should we respond to the injustice towards women in the rapes of Dinah and Tamar and the atrocity in the closing chapters of Judges? These accounts are disturbing and difficult to understand, and yet they are in the Bible. This may lead some to ask, "Is the Bible Good for Women?" While most of us know the answer, a simplistic "Yes" is not enough. This is why I recommend Wendy Alsup's new book, Is the Bible Good for Women?.

Before delving into specific passages, Wendy lays some basic groundwork. First we need to know if the Bible is good in general before we can trust that it is good for women. But in order to know if it is good, we need to know what it is trying to tell us. Too often we may think of it as "separate file folders of stories" with nice moral lessons. But from Genesis to Revelation, the Bible is one story of God's plan of redemption that was culminated in the coming of Jesus. This can be seen in the theme of the "scarlet thread" in the Old Testament. (pp. 17-30)

Then what does the Bible say about women? For that we are taken back to Genesis 1 and 2 where God created man and woman in His image. The word ezer or help is used for woman, but this is not in a derogatory or menial sense. God uses this word to describe Himself as a strong help to His people. Thus He is our example and the One we reflect in our lives and labor for the Kingdom. Yet we can't escape what happened in Genesis 3. We were alienated from God because of sin. The harmony that existed between man and woman was ruptured as well, and we feel the effects today. There are different interpretations of the meaning of Genesis 3:16, but I think we can agree that redemption in Christ is the key to restoring our relationship with God and between one another

We have something that bridges the gap between the godly longings of our hearts in Eden and our fallen reality. It is the gospel, the good news of this access we have to God through Christ... the bridge that makes a way for us to return to Eden, live in light of God's commission to man and woman, and once again be "imitators of God." (pg. 71)

Once this foundation is laid, Wendy tackles the law, some of the touchier instructions from Paul and Peter, and stories in the Old Testament that we may want to avoid. But what if we looked at them from a different vantage point where they are seen in the light of the gospel and the fact that Jesus has fulfilled the law on our behalf?

Can God's perfect love really cast out my fears when I examine Scriptural teachings (see 1 John 4:18)? Security in Him and confidence in His perfect love for me has empowered me to reengage instructions, laws, and commandments in Scripture that my fundamentalist upbringing misused against me. Clothed in Christ's righteousness, I don't feel threatened by reading Scripture's instructions at face value anymore. (pg. 131)

The book ends with the question, Is God good for women? There many places in the world where women are still marginalized. Some may even accuse Christianity of adding to the oppression. But it is in the pages of Scripture where we find that we are made in God's image. We learn that Jesus died to redeem us so we can become who we were created to be. So is the Bible good for women?

Our Father in Heaven values women. He revealed His goodness, care, and noble plans for women through His revelation of Himself to us in the Bible. The Bible is good for women, and it is good for men. It sets us out on an important, eternal journey and calls us to walk together in community. Like Him. (pg. 199)

I give a hearty recommendation to Is the Bible Good for Women? I believe it answers that question from the Bible in light of the gospel. As far as specific takeaways, there are several things that stand out. Throughout the book, Wendy emphasizes that Scripture is the best interpreter of itself as applied by the Holy Spirit. This is a hermeneutical principle that is vital for every student of the Word. I also appreciate her sensitivity in approaching some very difficult passages. We may not realize it, but there are women in the church who have suffered from trauma and abuse. Rather than taking a "just believe the Bible and get over it" attitude, this book can be an excellent tool in showing that the Scriptures reveal the One who takes away shame, restores, and renews. Lastly, Is the Bible Good for Women? was a pleasure to read. Wendy's writing is very clear and the logical progression of the book was easy to follow.

Wendy has graciously offered to give away a copy of her book! Please use the form below to enter your contact information. The giveaway ends on Sunday April 30.

(The giveaway has ended.)

I received a copy of this book from Multnomah. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission's 16 CFR, Part 255: "Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising."

Women in Scripture: Ruth and Naomi (Titus 2 in Reverse)

Ruth 1:16 But Ruth said (to Naomi), “Do not urge me to leave you or to return from following you. For where you go I will go, and where you lodge I will lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God my God."

Like most women, I've always had a particular affinity toward the portrait of redemption handed down in the story of Ruth. The sweeping tale of Boaz, the kinsman-redeemer, restoring the line of Elimelech by taking Naomi's daughter-in-law, Ruth, as his beloved wife upstages Disney by a mile. That such a noble man as Boaz would be willing to risk his own inheritance so that the inheritance of a deceased family member would be left intact defies conventional wisdom and truly boggles the rational mind. This is a man who understands love and covenant. Learning that the son of this Gentile widow and her kinsman-redeemer would not only become the grandfather of King David, but eventually would even be named in the bloodline genealogy of the Messiah, ought to inspire us all, especially those of us who were not born into the covenant and raised in the church.

An equally inspiring relational dynamic in this redemption story tends to be overlooked.  Ruth's relationship with her mother-in-law, Naomi, models something of a role reversal between the younger and older women. Both women suffered devastating losses, as told in first chapter of the narrative. During a time of great famine in the land of Moab, both Ruth and Naomi lost their husbands. Naomi suffered greatly in a land far from her original, because she not only lost her husband, but also both of her sons as well. Several times in the first chapter of Ruth, Naomi stated that she believed the Lord's hand had gone out against her. She even told Ruth and the other women to no longer call her Naomi, changing her name to "Mara" instead, which meant bitter. Naomi had grown bitter in Moab and believed the Lord had dealt bitterly with her by bringing great calamity upon her family.

After Naomi's pleas for Ruth to stay with her own family and with her Moabite god, Ruth, the younger woman, responded in a surprising way. Ruth, in faith, chose to bind herself to her mother-in-law Naomi, to Naomi's people, and to Naomi's God - the only One, true God. Ruth's dedication and commitment was no small sacrifice. Ruth chose to forsake her family, her ethnic culture, her past, and her previous belief system to follow Naomi into a completely different community and way of life.

Meanwhile, Naomi seemed have forgotten her true identity as child of the God. She lost her Biblical and covenantal perspective. Naomi's example is far from the Titus 2 ideal of the older woman of the covenant community. Yet, because of Ruth's covenant commitment to Naomi and her people, God not only restores Naomi to the covenant community, but He also provides a kinsman redeemer who blessed them both -- and eventually redeemed the rest of us, too. 

This was no ordinary friendship. The younger woman, Ruth, demonstrated real covenant commitment through active faith, love, and encouragement to the older woman, Naomi, to Naomi's people, and most especially to the Lord. Because of Ruth, the Lord redeemed the devastation that Naomi and Ruth experienced in Moab, while Elimelech and Naomi were separated from their covenant community. Because of Ruth, we see the Lord's providential provision to transform Naomi's life from an untimely tale of loss and discouragement to a phenomenal epic of life-giving rescue.  In this regard, the text and the older women in Naomi's life speak for themselves: 

Ruth 4:14 Then the women said to Naomi, “Blessed be the Lord, who has not left you this day without a redeemer, and may his name be renowned in Israel! 15 He shall be to you a restorer of life and a nourisher of your old age, for your daughter-in-law who loves you, who is more to you than seven sons, has given birth to him.”

We could use a new generation of younger women like Ruth who make the active decision to commit to their local covenant community and to the older women in their midst, like Naomi. During seasons of trial and suffering, whether dealing with the loss of a loved one, ill health, or just lagging faith, most older women could really use the energy and enthusiasm that younger women often bring to their interactions. As a middle woman, I feel the tug to be both a more committed younger woman, as well as a more gracious older woman. 

May I be willing to open up my life and share it with those who are newer in the faith -- and to sit, listen, and learn from the older and wiser women around me.

Falsifiabilty: The Atheist Dilemma

Casting the proverbial gauntlet against God and the problem of meaning, philosophical atheists posit that language, meaning, and truth claims that are falsifiable take preeminence over those which are non-falsifiable. By emphasizing analytical over against analogical argumentation, atheistic theorists seek to limit the validity of truth claims that depend on phenomena outside the physical world. (Osborne, 2006, p. 500).

The famous atheist, A. J. Ayer, wrote Language, Truth, and Logic, establishing principles of both falsifiability and verifiability. In his works, Ayer stated that theistic belief is untenable, because the only possible method of falsification depends upon the end of one's physical existence (Osborne, 2006, p. 500). The analytical approach limits us to the physical world, but an analogical approach provides additional epistemological help, which Ayer rejected all of his life. 

In the scriptures, Luke 16:31 provides a verifiable example of the type of truth claim that Ayer could have accepted analogically. Jesus states, "He (Abraham) said to him (the rich man), 'If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’” The context of the passage is the death of the rich man and the disabled, poor man, Lazarus. Both men witness first hand a taste of the afterlife. The rich man, seeing his lot and the impassable chasm that separates him from Lazarus, begs Abraham to let him go back and tell his father and his brothers, so they will believe and repent (Luke 16:25-30, NASB).

Jesus’s response, in the form of parable, is both contextually relevant to his immediate hearers and consequentially persuasive for our time. He describes the dire punishment that awaits unbelievers, as represented by the rich man, and the relationship between physical evidence and unbelief. When Jesus refers to someone rising from the dead, his immediate context is the rich man's request in the parable. Yet the messianic meaning points to the future event of the resurrection of Christ himself. Thus, even when empirical facts with materialistic proof exist -- and even when that evidence can also subjected to falsification (John 20:27) -- those who hold an antithetical worldview won’t believe. Falsification and verification will not convince a hardened heart. By the time the atheist's life-long demand for verification materializes, it will be too late, as the experience of the rich man attests. 

Interestingly, later in life, A.J. Ayer recounted a near death experience of his own, which eerily juxtaposed Jesus’s statements in Luke 16. Ayer wrote:

 “My recent experiences (while medically declared dead) have slightly weakened my conviction that my genuine death, which is due fairly soon, will be the end of me, though I continue to hope that it will be. They have not weakened my conviction that there is no god. I trust that my remaining an atheist will allay the anxieties of my fellow supporters of the British Humanist Association, the Rationalist Press Association and the South Place Ethical Society.” 

Ayer remained more consistent to his atheistic worldview than he did to his own theory of falsification, even though he admitted he had no more reason to hold to his disbelief. We know that unbelief and the quest for falsification will be thwarted in the end:

" at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" (Phil. 2:10-11)

A second atheistic theorist who held to the falsifiability principle, Anthony Flew, stated “no truth statement can claim veracity unless it can be falsified, that is, unless one can prove that the reverse cannot be true. (Osborne, 2006).

Here again we find rich irony, as Flew was also known for writing The Parable of the Invisible Gardener. In his parable, Flew's characters acknowledged the evidence of “the garden” (a metaphor for the world), its order, and its rationality as indisputable, empirical facts. However, what Flew's science was not empirically able to either prove or falsify in this system was the existence of the Gardener. From a rationalistic, analytical perspective, science could neither prove or disprove the existence of a gardener. Yet, in Flew’s case (unlike Ayer) the garden itself became a sufficient witness to the existence of deity - the Gardener. Eventually, Flew came to believe through the analogical argumentation of Aristotle and other classicists in the necessity of existence of an intelligent and rational Gardener behind the garden (Flew, 2007).

Flew transcended the weakness of analytical materialism and stumbled onto what analogical theorists taught, especially with regard to reclaiming the force of the linguistic device known as referent (or in this case, the Referent). Again, the scriptures speak to the very nature of the topic that Flew encountered, as Paul wrote to the early church in Rome: 

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse (Romans 1:20, NASB).

Another well-known atheist philosopher, Karl Popper, famously stated that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a “metaphysical research programme” (Popper, 1976). Alhough Popper modified his statement later by adding that  some aspects of Darwinism, such as natural selection, may be falsifiable, his premise that we have no means of proving or falsifying origins theories remains (Popper, 1978). 

Even so, the Christian worldview and our truth claims do not rest on empirical evidence or the falsifiability of facts. Rather, our foundation is based on the power of the God, proclaimed in the Gospel of Christ. We are not mere theists, but rather we have the full wisdom of God in special revelation, in which we believe because of the Spirit's work in us. Paul wrote:

 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God (1 Cor. 1:21-24).

While our faith does not depend on evidence, we also know that Jesus accommodated the disciples by appearing to them after His death, by teaching them through miracles and healing in their presence. Therefore, God cares about the Christian's desire for experiential validation of key tenants of the faith as an ancillary feature of knowledge. By the Holy Spirit 's witness to the Word, He serves as a deposit for our faith and continues to draw us back to the source of all truth, knowledge, and wisdom.  

When the Lord returns, we know our questions will cease once and for all, because our faith will be made sight:

For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known. (1 Cor. 13:12)

Maranatha!

References

Ayer, A.J. (1998). What I saw when I was dead. The Sunday Telegraph. http://www.philosopher.eu/others-writings/a-j-ayer-what-i-saw-when-i-was-dead/

Flew, Anthony. (1950-51) "Theology and Falsification," from Joel Feinberg, ed., Reason and Responsibility: Readings in Some Basic Problems of Philosophy. Belmont, CA: Dickenson Publishing Company, Inc., pp. 48-49.
 
Flew, Anthony & Verghese, R. A. (2007). There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. HarperOne. Reprint edition. P. 92.

Osborne, G. R. (2006) The hermeneutical spiral: a comprehensive introduction to biblical interpretation. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. pp. 500-505.

Popper, K. R. (1976). Unended quest. Glasgow: Fontana, Collins. p.151. 

Popper, K. R. (1978). Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind, Dialectica, v.32, 3-4, pp. 339-355

Sola versus Solo Scriptura

Sola Scriptura: the teaching that Scripture is the Church's only infallible and sufficient rule for deciding issues of faith and practices that involve doctrines.

A friend on Facebook posted a link to the Heidelblog - Sola Scripture ≠ Nuda Scriptura. I wasn't familiar with the term, Nuda or Solo Scriptura, so I read the post, which says:

Evangelical Christians in North America sometimes misunderstand the Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura to mean that the Bible is the Christian’s only theological resource, that it can and should be denuded of its churchly context (hence nuda Scriptura). Such an understanding is altogether incorrect.... Calvin believed that holy Scripture as the only infallible rule of faith and practice should serve as the final authority by which to judge Christian doctrine and practice, but it was not his only resource for theology...He recognized the strategic importance of demonstrating the continuity of Protestant teaching with the core convictions of the early Church.

While believers should be Bereans and search the Scriptures for themselves, we don't do it in a vacuum. Our study of the Word is not disconnected from what has transpired in church history. Even the means by which and the theological grid through which we interpret the Word are influenced by those who have gone before us. 

So given the potential for deception if one is left to one's self, I wondered if any cults or erroneous teachings were conceived via Solo Scriptura. In my reading, I happened upon:

- Caleb Rich "insisted that his own interpretation of Scripture should not be mediated by any other authority, historical or ecclesiastical - a conviction steeled by the competing claims of rival denominations and a new openness to visionary experiences." He begin "having  a series of visionary experiences in which celestial persons counseled him to avoid all other denominations and all other human advice." Rich became the main leader of Universalism in New England at the end of the 1700's. ¹

- Lucy Mack Smith came to the following conviction: "I said in my heart that there was not then upon earth the religion which I sought. I therefore determined to examine my Bible, and taking Jesus and the disciples as my guide, to endeavor to obtain from God that which man could neither give nor take away… The Bible I intended should be my guide to life and salvation." She eventually "sealed this individualization of conscience by finding a minister who agreed to baptize her as a solitary Christian without any attachment to any congregation." Perhaps she isn't very well known, but her son is - Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormons. ²

I would hasten to add that believers may find themselves in isolated situations because of persecution. A person in a previously unreached group may be the first and only Christian in the community. There may be situations where a believer needs to leave an unhealthy or even abusive church environment and take time to recover. I get that, and my recovery took seven years. But spiritual isolation in the present and from the past can be a dangerous thing.

In my case, I felt betrayed by leaders I had previously trusted, so I refused any form of teaching apart from the Bible, like the people mentioned above. When 9/11 occurred, universalism was very appealing at that moment as I tried to make sense of the world. But making sense was nigh impossible given the weakness of my theological foundation. Looking back, God preserved me from falling into error, but what I thought would keep me from going further astray only starved me spiritually.

I also think a sense of independence is ingrained in the American psyche such that it was easy to disdain the past. "We threw off the shackles of those imperialists long ago! Who needs history?! And who needs church history?!" I was so ignorant that I honestly believed the Apostle John died and BOOM! Instant Roman Catholic Church as we know it today. I had no clue about the early church fathers who wrestled against heresy and sought to defend the truth by encapsulating essential Christian beliefs into basic statements of faith. I fell into the trap of thinking new was better when it came to doctrine, as if I knew better than generations of Christians before me. They were certainly not infallible, and as C.S. Lewis says:

People were no cleverer then than they are now; they made as many mistakes as we. But not the same mistakes. They will not flatter us in the errors we are already committing; and their own errors, being now open and palpable, will not endanger us.³

Thankfully God has brought me to a very different place in my spiritual journey. Today I affirm Sola Scriptura and agree 100% with Martin Luther that my conscience must be held captive to the Word, but not in isolation. I owe a debt to the saints who lived and died in defense of the truth down through the ages. The creeds, confessions, and writings of the past can be a healthy corrective against the errors of my day. I should not take them lightly but value them as God-given safeguards of the faith.


For further reading: 'Sola Scriptura' Radicalized and Abandoned - Matthew Barrett

1. The Democratization of American Christianity, Nathan O. Hatch, Yale University Press, 1989, pp. 40-41.

2. Ibid. 43.

3. Introduction by C.S. Lewis to On the Incarnation by Athanasius.

This is an expansion of a prior post on my personal blog.

The rubber that meets the road

"I can't imaging going through [fill in the blank] if I wasn't a Christian."

Your answer for the blank may have been different from mine, but I think we would agree that we would not want to face trials or even an ordinary day without Christ. But what does that really mean when push comes to shove? What difference does it make being a Christian?

Does being a Christian mean I won't have any problems? Do I truly get my "best life now?"¹

If being a Christian doesn't give me an automatic out from hardship, does God still love me? Is He with me? How do I know this? Is it a feeling of emotional well-being? But what if I feel nothing?²

You may be thinking, "Enough of the questions already." You may be answering my questions in your head. But what are your answers and, more importantly, what is the source of those answers?

For some of you, your answers came from the Scriptures. You took what the Bible said about God, His character, and His ways, and applied it to my questions. In short, the rubber of theology met the road of life. But sadly there is also a climate in Christendom which defines spirituality as "an experience devoid of doctrinal content and detached from any testable historical claims."³ "I don't need doctrine. I just love Jesus. Can't we just be practical?" And I was the poorer for this attitude.

I was a Christian for decades when I was blindsided by a trial. At that time, I was underfed, bordering on spiritual starvation. I read the Bible subjectively with myself as the main character, not God, but I was never taught how to study the Bible. I knew of Him secondhand, but I never bothered to test and examine those teachings for myself. So I passively absorbed whatever came down the pike. Consequently, there was no theological rubber to meet the road - more like bare rims scraping the asphalt. But in His mercy, God did not leave me malnourished. My family began to attend a local church where we were fed the Word and strengthened through the ordinary means of grace. I began to learn about the God I had confessed for years but didn't really know. My circumstances did not change, but I changed. Truth came to bear on my life, and this made all the difference in the world.

So please don't be afraid of theology. Please don't be afraid to open the Bible and stretch your understanding. We can learn about a God who is so great and yet condescends to save sinners. We can trace His faithfulness from Genesis 1 to the certain conclusion in Revelation 22. The truth of God found in His Word is an anchor for our souls and a feast spread before us. So let's dig in. What are we waiting for?


1. Romans 8:18; 2 Tim. 3:12; Matt. 5:10-12.
2. John 14:26-27; Psalm 46:1; Rom. 8:32-39; 2 Cor. 1:3-4; 1 Pet. 5:10.
3. Total Truth, Nancy Pearcey, Crossway, 2008, pg. 118.

Captive to the Word of God

If I had to pick a significant event of the Protestant Reformation, it would be Martin Luther's trial at the Diet of Worms on April 17, 1521. This was nearly four years since he nailed his 95 theses to the door of the Wittenberg Castle Church. In the intervening time, Luther continued publishing critiques against the Roman Catholic Church's teachings on indulgences and the treasury of merit, which were not well received. Thus the process began of prosecuting him in both church and civil courts. Prior to Worms, Luther met with church officials to debate his position. Rather than supporting their stance from Scripture, Rome's arguments lay in the fact that the practices objected to were sanctioned by previous popes and church councils. Thus Luther was put in the unenviable place of stating that popes, theologians, and councils can err. By the time the Diet of Worms convened, he had already been excommunicated. This trial, presided by Emperor Charles V, was to seek civil penalties, likely execution, if he refused to recant. There was no opportunity for further debate on April 17, 1521. Luther was merely presented with a stack of his books and asked to identify if they were his, which he acknowledged. He was then asked to recant and promise to never teach such heresy again. Yes or no? His voice was barely audible as he requested another 24 hours to consider the matter. After spending the night in prayer, Martin Luther returned to the council the following day and delivered his famous speech. There was no turning back.

Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Holy Scriptures or by evident reason - for I can believe neither pope nor councils alone, as it is clear that they have erred repeatedly and contradicted themselves - I consider myself convicted by the testimony of Holy Scripture, which is my basis; my conscience is captive to the Word of God. Thus I cannot and will not recant, because acting against one's conscience is neither safe nor sound. God help me. Amen.

I will never be a pivotal figure in church history like Martin Luther, but there is much I can learn from his example. As a Baptist, I don't have a pope, but it can be easy to defer to a "pope" of my own making when it comes to spiritual matters. I greatly respect my pastor and other theologians past and present who have greater knowledge of the Bible than I do. Yet even if they are right, they can't learn or think for me. This does not mean that I go to a desert island with just my Bible and the Holy Spirit and see what pops into my head. Bad idea. No, the process of examining the Scriptures to see if these things are so takes place in the context of the local church. But I will miss out on so much if I short-circuit digging into the Word and wrestling with doctrines myself by taking another person's word for it. Likewise, I need to respect those who are in the same learning process. In my enthusiasm, it can be easy to bowl someone over by the strength of my convictions and sway them to come to "my side." But this deprives my brothers and sisters of the joy and benefit of searching the Scriptures for themselves.

So I want to take a leaf from Martin Luther's book. May "I consider myself convicted by the testimony of Holy Scripture, which is my basis; my conscience is captive to the Word of God... God help me. Amen."

Sources:
Reformation 500 - A site dedicated to the upcoming 500th anniversary of the Reformation. It has a very helpful timeline of events with associated articles.
The Trial of Martin Luther - Another timeline.
What Luther Said - What did he really say at the Diet of Worms?
Progress to Worms from Luther and the Reformation - Lectures by R.C. Sproul