Talking about IHOP-KC and Scripture: My Second Appearance on the Long for Truth Podcast

I was on the Long for Truth podcast again to talk about the teachings of Mike Bickle and the International House of Prayer. This time, we specifically focused on whether or not IHOP-KC truly holds scripture up as their standard. As we discussed and explained, Mike Bickle and company do not, in fact, hold scripture up as their final standard.

The link to their original blog post can be found here.

The podcast can be listened to below:

Listen to "Mike Bickle and Scripture: With Tony- Allen" on Spreaker.

This Week in Review - 3/17/2017

Time for yet another roundup of highlights this week.

What Does The Shack Really Teach? “Lies We Believe About God” Tells Us from Tim Challies - An important read for any Christian tackling any debate that exists over The Shack. Tim Challies goes through William Paul Young's straight theological treatise Lies We Believe About God and presents excerpts and summaries of what Young truly believes, but might have kept vague in his fictional novel. Would you be surprised to learn Young isn't too fond of the topics of the crucifixion, sin, or God's absolute sovereignty?

Did Jesus Exist? All Scholars Agree He “Certainly” Existed from Reasons for Jesus - Do all scholars teach that Jesus never existed? Actually, that's far from the truth - even atheist or agnostic scholars widely believe he at the very least existed. This article provides relevant quotes to that very topic.

How Atheist Hate & Mockery Led a Richard Dawkins Fan, Richard Morgan, to Faith from James Bishop's Theological Rationalism - It wasn't a superficial reason like "Oh, these guys are mean, I'm going to stop being one." Rather, it was seeing how vitriolic they were towards all contrary thought, especially when a pastor joined the forum and started to present calm, reasonable, and kind answers to atheist objections, and only received more of the same. This article is a good read on that whole experience.

Darwin’s Problem: The Origin of Language from Reasons to Believe - A discussion on how language developed, and what makes a language to begin with. As the author points out, it's not just a bunch of grunts and barks.

Richard Dawkins’ Argument for Atheism in The God Delusion from Reasonable Faith - William Lane Craig responds to Richard Dawkins' six-part argument against the existence of God, and why it's philosophically unsound.

The Definition That Will Not Die! from Reasonable Faith - William Lane Craig and Kevin Harris discuss five common arguments in favor of atheism that even some atheists consider unsound. These include "You can't prove something doesn't exist," "Lack of belief isn't a belief," etc.

Answering the Galileo Myth from Stand to Reason - A small post dealing with the story of Galileo and the church, which is often cited to say that science and religion conflict with each other. I might add to this a post I shared quite a while ago, covering that same topic, and bringing up a few points rarely discussed in the Galileo story.

Basic Training: The Bible Is Sufficient from Michelle Lesley - A little guide on the sufficiency of scripture, especially in this day and age of the New Apostolic Reformation nonsense.

The Reliability of the Bible – 4 Quick Thoughts from Reasonable Theology - If you've read anything on manuscript evidence before, you'll probably already recognize these four "quick thoughts." Still, it pays to be reminded every now and then.

5 apologetics arguments Christians should avoid from Premier Christianity - Most of these are just silly claims (eg., the Blood Moons stuff), however, they're worth mentioning, just in case anyone takes any of these seriously.

And in the humor corner...

5 Reasons Why Christians Should Reject Santa Claus from A Clear Lens - Funny, short read. (It's not what you think.)

Application Versus Interpretation

Some time ago, I got in a discussion on Twitter regarding someone's twisting of a scriptural verse based on a dream they had. When I pointed out that they had misused it, someone from their staff came up and said, "To use in application is NOT to interpret. Big difference. Application is NOT deriving doctrine."

The biggest problem I can see with this argument is that application implies interpretation. That is, application comes from your method of interpretation. Let me try to explain with this example:

A long time ago, I discussed context by citing a college friend playing his character in the video game Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind and saying, "I could kill the whole world if I wanted to." Now, there are various modes of application that can come from various modes of interpretation, and two big ones are (with their interpretations):

The Contextual Approach
"When he says 'whole world,' he's clearly referring to the in game world, meaning the world in the game. He's not saying he wants to kill literally everybody in the whole wide world in real life."

The Experiential Approach
"I had a dream that he was going to go to a planet on the far end of the universe and kill all the alien mutants he found on it. That's what he was talking about."

In the former approach, the context of the citation is looked at. What do the words mean? Under what settings were they said? Why were they said? What led to them being said? What were they trying to convey? This is how most serious students of the Bible attempt to read it.

In the latter approach, the individual's personal experiences trump the plain meaning. The context of how it was said - including who, what, when, where, why, and how - is thrown out the window. Instead, the individual's personal experiences, dreams, and revelations are used as the guide for interpreting the original words. That those words were said under certain circumstances and speaking on certain subjects is no longer important; those words are understood in a whole new way, with a whole new application derived from the method of interpretation.

The funny thing is I'm sure most people who heard someone interpret my college friend with the experiential approach would think the individual was crazy. They'd probably say, "Dude, that's not what the guy meant. Don't mess with the context of what he said." Yet when it comes to the words of scripture, that sort of common sense gets thrown out the window. Suddenly, scripture can mean anything we want it to, for whatever reasons. Whether you're spiritualizing a verse never meant to be allegory, or you're basing your interpretation off of dreams and so-called prophetic words you've experienced, you're no longer letting the context of the words guide your understanding. The words I've cited before are the words of mortal men. Scripture is not. Scripture consists of the very words of God. Shouldn't we be even more careful not to abuse their context?

The fact is, as I wrote before, our application comes from our method of interpretation. If our method of interpretation does not have the plain meaning of scripture as its primary authority, then we have another authority besides God's word.

MacArthur: How Should We Interpret the Bible?

A John MacArthur sermon about...well...read the title of the post.

How Should We Interpret the Bible?

Revelation Apart from the Word

The following is taken from RC Sproul's article "The Establishment of Scripture," from the 2009 edition of Ligonier Ministries' Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible.

The claims of private revelations are many. Pat Robertson has routinely received a "word of knowledge" on national television. He says God reveals specific illnesses of people who live in various parts of the nation as he prays. I have seen him say things like, "Someone in Topeka, Kansas, is being healed of a goiter right this moment." This is an astonishing thing. Here is a man hundreds of miles from the scene who is getting supernatural revelation of the healing of a specific disease in a specific city. But what puzzles me is the restricted specificity of these revelations. The disease and the city are named, but never the name and address of the person being healed. Consequently, the prophecy can be neither verified nor disproved.

Oral Roberts once told the nation that God had revealed to him that his life would be taken if he didn't raise a large amount of money in donations. Robert Tilton promised his constituents that he would mail them a special message from God if they sent in their donations. These, of course, are crude forms of modern claims to added revelation. How these claims can be entertained by the credulous is a matter of consternation for me.

But it gets more subtle. We hear respected Christian leaders claiming that God has "spoken to them" and given specific guidance and instructions they are duty-bound to obey. They are careful to note that this divine speech was not in audible form and there is a disclaimer that this is not new "revelation." Yet the message that is "laid on the heart" is so clear and powerful that to disobey it is to disobey the voice of God. I am not speaking here of the work of the Holy Spirit, by which He illumines the text of Scripture in such a sharp manner as to bring us under conviction or direct our paths; in such times, the Spirit works in the Word and through the Word. I am speaking of the voice of the Spirit that men claim is working apart from the Word and in addition to the Word.

Though such claims are more often than not attended by the disclaimer that they are not revelation, the way they function is as revelation, so that the distinction between them and bona fide revelation is, in actuality, a distinction without a difference. [pg. 56]

Is the International House of Prayer truly Sola Scriptura?

Over and over again, faculty and staff at the International House of Prayer in Kansas City (IHOP-KC) state that they hold scripture up to its highest standard. The Statement of Faith on IHOP-KC's website states: "The Bible is the final authority for all we believe and for how we are to live" (source). Another section of the website likewise states:

We deny that subjective prophetic experiences are equal to the inspired Word of God. In other words, all personal prophecy must uphold and honor the Scripture. [source]

Mike Bickle stated at Session 8 of the 2013 Prayer and Prophetic Conference that IHOP-KC doesn't "honor a dream or vision that doesn't honor the written word of God" (source). In his book on the prophetic movement, Mike Bickle likewise writes:

We value seeing ministry of the gifts of the Holy Spirit operate in relation to the written Word of God. This is a nonnegotiable aspect of the IHOP Missions Base quest to grow in the prophetic. [pg. 4, Prophetic]

The question we must ask, however, is if this is true. It is one thing to say you hold scripture up to a high standard, and another to actually follow this statement in application. For example, Roman Catholics might argue that they honor the word of God, but this is only in accordance with the teachings of their church. If a doctrine taught by their church is either completely absent from scripture, or is actually contradicted by scripture, then the authority of the church gets the upper hand over and against scripture.

The question must thus be asked: upon what does IHOP-KC base not only its existence, but the vast majority of its theology? As I demonstrated in a previous post, everything that IHOP-KC does and believes is based on personal revelation. IHOP-KC exists because Mike Bickle claims that God spoke to him in Cairo in 1982, and instructed him about what he was going to do with Christianity in the coming generation. IHOP-KC's vision of the end times - which fuels the theology, actions and purpose of the prayer room - comes from a direct revelation from God. Even the acronym "IHOP" is claimed by Bickle and others to have come directly from God.

Even more alarming is that interpretation of scripture is read not from an understanding of its original context, but rather through the lens of the personal revelation given. One big example of this, which I've given before, was Bickle's handling of Acts 2, where he cut up verses in half, ignored the larger context, and applied it to what IHOP-KC was doing. Another example, and one very telling, is found in a presentation given by Mike Bickle regarding the founding of IHOP-KC:

Sixteen years go by, it is now January 1999. Again, we have got more detail on the notes here. A man came to me on Sunday morning, on January 24, 1999, and he gave me Haggai 1:2. Let’s read it:

“This people says, ‘The time has not come, the time that the Lord’s house should be built.’” It says: these people say in their heart that the time has not yet come that the house of the Lord should be built.

He looked at me, and he said, “Don’t say in your heart, from Haggai 1:2, do not say . . .” He opened the Bible, pointed, and he said, “Don’t say it is not time to build this twenty-four-hour house of prayer.”

I said, “Well, I don’t think it is time.”

He said, “Yes, but you are not supposed to say that.”

I said, “Well, it doesn’t really work that way, though I appreciate your sincerity.” I was thinking of just the immense amount of work, labor, and I decided to say no. “In the future for sure, we are going to do it.” We had a sign on the wall for most of the sixteen years that said “24-hour prayer in the spirit of the tabernacle of David.” We had it on the wall, and everybody saw it for years and years. He said, “It is time to build it.”

I said, “I don’t know. I don’t think so.” Then, I got on the airplane that day and went to Colorado Springs, and there was a prophetic conference. On Wednesday in Colorado Springs, a man named Kingsley Fletcher came to me. I did not know him. I had heard of him, but had never met him. He came up to me, and I was with a group of guys talking. He points his finger at me, and he is smiling at me as if he knows something I do not know. I know that he is prophetic, and I am smiling, as he is smiling. He closed his eyes; he says, “Do not say in your heart it is not time to build the house of the Lord, Haggai 1:2.”

Let's pause here a moment: has anyone in Christian history, up until this moment, interpreted Haggai 1:2 as referencing the founding of the International House of Prayer? On the contrary, Haggai is speaking of the reconstruction of the Second Temple - any one who simply reads the book of Haggai would understand that. Avoiding any complicated discussion on the original Hebrew, systematic theology, etc., let's simply read the previous verse:

In the second year of Darius the king, in the sixth month, on the first day of the month, the word of the Lord came by the hand of Haggai the prophet to Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and to Joshua the son of Jehozadak, the high priest [Haggai 1:1]

Was the International House of Prayer founded in the second year of Darius [Hystaspis] the king, in the sixth month (Elul, roughly our July or August), on the first day of the month? Is Mike Bickle the prophet Haggai? Did he speak these words to Zerubbabel and Joshua? Did Mike Bickle speak to ancient Jews (the "these people" of verse 2)? If we answered no to any of these questions, then this verse is not about the International House of Prayer and its founding. Some might contend that the apostles often found dual fulfillment in ancient prophecies - however, the apostles had been granted the special ability by Christ to see him in the scriptures (Lk 24:44-47). Therefore, if we are attempting to grant Mike Bickle and his associates this ability, we are putting them on equals with the apostles, and granting them the same ability. The fact is, Bickle abused God's word, and distorted its context to substantiate the supposed revelation. He interpreted God's word not from the immediate context or how scripture itself interpreted it, but how his so-called "prophetic" experiences interpreted it.

Contrary to Bickle's earlier quoted assurances, all this is not "upholding and honoring" scripture, but twisting scripture to suit the "subjective prophetic experiences" which you claim were given to you by God. In other words, you're placing something else as a higher authority than scripture. When one says "scripture defines scripture," what they mean is that the ultimate meaning of God's word is understood by how God, the author of Holy Writ, explains it himself. Any time you give someone other than God that authority - whether it's a church, a single person, or personal experiences - then you are superseding God's authority, and raising an authority higher than His word.

From all this, we can see that, as a matter of fact, IHOP-KC's final authority is not scripture, and they do not uphold the historical doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
---------------------------------
Bickle, Mike. Growing in the Prophetic. Lake Mary: Charisma House, 2008.

Did Jews ever consider the apocrypha scripture?

The following is from Against Apion, by Flavius Josephus. It sheds light into how Jews in the time of Christ considered the books considered by Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and other groups to be canon, as well as how serious the Jews took the word of God and preserved them.

It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time; and how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own nation, is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add anything to them, to take anything from them, or to make any change in them; but it becomes natural to all Jews, immediately and from their very birth, to esteem those books to contain divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be, willing to die for them. [1:8; source]

The Perspicuity and Obscurity of Scripture

The following is from Martin Luther's Bondage of the Will.

Now I come to the next head, which is connected with this; where you make a “distinction between the Christian doctrines,” and pretend that some are necessary, and some not necessary.” You say, that “some are abstruse, and some quite clear.”...

But, that there are in the Scriptures some things abstruse, and that all things are not quite plain, is a report spread abroad by the impious Sophists by whose mouth you speak here, Erasmus. But they never have produced, nor ever can produce, one article whereby to prove this their madness. And it is with such scare-crows that Satan has frightened away men from reading the Sacred Writings, and has rendered the Holy Scripture contemptible, that he might cause his poisons of philosophy to prevail in the church. This indeed I confess, that there are many places in the Scriptures obscure and abstruse; not from the majesty of the thing, but from our ignorance of certain terms and grammatical particulars; but which do not prevent a knowledge of all the things in the Scriptures. For what thing of more importance can remain hidden in the Scriptures, now that the seals are broken, the stone rolled from the door of the sepulchre, and that greatest of all mysteries brought to light, Christ made man: that God is Trinity and Unity: that Christ suffered for us, and will reign to all eternity? Are not these things known and proclaimed even in our streets? Take Christ out of the Scriptures, and what will you find remaining in them?

WHAT you adduce, therefore, about the darkness of the Corycian cavern, amounts to nothing; matters are not so in the Scriptures. For those things which are of the greatest majesty, and the most abstruse mysteries, are no longer in the dark corner, but before the very doors, nay, brought forth and manifested openly. For Christ has opened our understanding to understand the Scriptures, Luke xxiv. 45. And the Gospel is preached to every creature. (Mark xvi. 15, Col. i. 23.) “Their sound is gone out into all the earth.” (Psalm xix. 4.) And “All things that are written, are written for our instruction.” (Rom. xv. 4.) And again, “All Scripture is inspired from above, and is profitable for instruction.” (2 Tim. iii. 16.) .

Therefore come forward, you and all the Sophists together, and produce any one mystery which is still abstruse in the Scriptures. But, if many things still remain abstruse to many, this does not arise from obscurity in the Scriptures, but from their own blindness or want of understanding, who do not go the way to see the all-perfect clearness of the truth. As Paul saith concerning the Jews, 2 Cor. iii. 15. “The veil still remains upon their heart.” And again, “If our gospel be hid it is hid to them that are lost, whose heart the god of this world hath blinded.” (2 Cor. iv. 3-4.) With the same rashness any one may cover his own eyes, or go from the light into the dark and hide himself, and then blame the day and the sun for being obscure. Let, therefore, wretched men cease to impute, with blasphemous perverseness, the darkness and obscurity of their own heart to the all-clear Scriptures of God. ...

In like manner, your examples which you subjoin, not without suspicion and bitterness, are nothing at all to the purpose. Such are those concerning the distinction of Persons: the union of the Divine and human natures: the unpardonable sin: the ambiguity attached to which, you say, has never been cleared up. — If you mean the questions of Sophists that have been agitated upon those subjects, well. But what has the all-innocent Scripture done to you, that you impute the abuse of the most wicked of men to its purity? The Scripture simply confesses the Trinity of God, the humanity of Christ, and the unpardonable sin. There is nothing here of obscurity or ambiguity. But how these things are the Scripture does not say, nor is it necessary to be known. The Sophists employ their dreams here; attack and condemn them, and acquit the Scripture. — But, if you mean the reality of the matter, I say again, attack not the Scriptures, but the Arians, and those to whom the Gospel is hid, that, through the working of Satan, they might not see the all-manifest testimonies concerning the Trinity of the Godhead, and the humanity of Christ.

But to be brief. The clearness of the Scripture is twofold; even as the obscurity is twofold also. The one is external, placed in the ministry of the word; the other internal, placed in the understanding of the heart. If you speak of the internal clearness, no man sees one iota in the Scriptures, but he that hath the Spirit of God. All have a darkened heart; so that, even if they know how to speak of, and set forth, all things in the Scripture, yet, they cannot feel them nor know them: nor do they believe that they are the creatures of God, nor any thing else: according to that of Psalm xiv. 1. “The fool hath said in his heart, God is nothing.” For the Spirit is required to understand the whole of the Scripture and every part of it. If you speak of the external clearness, nothing whatever is left obscure or ambiguous; but all things that are in the Scriptures, are by the Word brought forth into the clearest light, and proclaimed to the whole world. [from Sect. III-IV]

Prima Scriptura, Sola Scriptura and Sola Ecclesia

Does the belief in prima scriptura inevitably lead one to believe either in sola scriptura or sola ecclesia?

First, let's define some terms:

Prima Scriptura is the name given by many as a counter for sola scriptura. The idea is that while scripture is not the sole rule of faith in the church, it is the primary authority. It refers to the primacy of scripture, or that scripture is primary among traditions and ecclesiastical decisions, although those also carry some authority alongside scripture. This teaching stems from the idea that when the apostles founded the church, they left a conglomerate of teachings, both written and unwritten, and the written portion became scripture. Therefore, while there are traditions and extra-biblical beliefs, scripture is still held the highest among them. However, because it is believed that scripture, traditions and church authority all come from the same source (that is, Christ and the apostles), they all carry varying degrees of importance.

One perspective on this, from the Eastern Orthodox church, writes:

The Church recognizes one and only one source of authority for Her faith and practice: the apostolic tradition. The Divine Scriptures are part - albeit the most important part - of that tradition. To set Scriptures up as something over and apart from tradition is to have the tail wagging the dog. [pg. 135-136. Carlton, Clark. The Way: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church. Salisbury: Regina Orthodox Press, 1997.]

Sola Ecclesia is a nickname roughly translated as "church alone." It refers to a doctrine that teaches the church is the sole authority and rule of faith, and all is decided through the ecclesiastical body. One can see the more extreme and blatant versions of it in cults such as Mormonism or the Jehovah's Witnesses, where the teachings of the group itself trump whatever scripture might have to say. So much so, in fact, that in some situations new scripture is added (as in Mormonism) or the very words of scripture are changed to suit the group's theology (as in the Jehovah's Witnesses and their New World Translation).

Sola Scriptura is the Reformation-era name for the doctrine of "scripture alone." We must immediately point out here that the most common straw man presented of sola scriptura is of an Evangelical pastor beating his Bible and saying, "This is all you need!" This is not the case, however. Scripture alone does not mean scripture isolated or scripture by itself, which some scholars (such as Keith Mathison in his work The Spirit of Sola Scriptura) have referred to jestingly as "solo scriptura." Sola scriptura acknowledges the presence and permits the use of history, language, contextual study, patristics and scholars. However, what it does teach is that all of this is held to the standard of scripture and scripture alone. The writings of godly theologians, the decisions of councils, and traditions claimed to have been passed down through the ages - while not necessarily useless in and of themselves - do not get to trump the writings of scripture. God's word has the final say.

Now that we have established these terms, we return to our question: does prima scriptura inevitably lead one to follow sola scriptura or sola ecclesia? Long ago I made this chart to try to explain this further:

The line of thinking is this: you start out with the presupposition of Prima Scriptura. So far so good. Now let's say you bring in a tradition, doctrine or belief. Do we have a question regarding its validity? If no, there is nothing to worry about. Some things, such as the existence of a historical Christ or how many disciples there were, may not have any need to be questioned.

Let us say, however, that we have something worth asking a question about. We'll take, as an example, the teaching of the repose and later bodily assumption of the Virgin Mary (which I've touched on in greater detail here). The next question we must ask: is it able to be proven by scripture? In the case of the bodily assumption of Mary, the quick answer is no, it cannot be. The next question must be: is this an issue? If one answers No, for the church has spoken and thus it is so, then they are followers of sola ecclesia, for they are following church authority over scriptural authority. If they answer Yes, and so it cannot be part of our infallible rule of worship or faith, then they are following sola scriptura, for they are appealing to the authority of scripture.

Many might protest this example, because scripture is only silent about the bodily assumption of Mary and not exactly (though somewhat) contrary to it. Therefore, I will move on to another example: the celibacy of the clergy. In Roman Catholicism, priests and bishops are celibate in toto, whereas in Eastern Orthodoxy (and some other forms of Eastern Christianity) priests may be married provided they were married before ordination (after which they must be celibate) while all bishops must be celibate.

Now let us apply this same flow of thinking as before: is this mode of clerical celibacy affirmed by scripture? The answer, again, is no: Paul writes in Titus 1:5-6 that elders (or priests) can be married and have children; Paul likewise writes in 1 Timothy 3:2 that overseers (or bishops) can be married, and even says in verses 4-5 that one sign they are fit for their post is that their family household is in good order. He even records in 1 Corinthians 9:5 that James, Peter and other apostles, most of them considered to be bishops in "apostolic" churches, had wives. Now we must ask how we respond to this in light of the church tradition. If we say This is of no concern, the church has chosen in her prudence to instill this form of celibacy, then we are falling into sola ecclesia. If, however, we say This is of concern, for it contradicts the words of Paul, therefore this tradition must be thrown out, then we are following sola scriptura.

In both these situations, the tradition, belief or doctrine actually overrides the authority of scripture. Though many might protest this and assure us that the church is merely "interpreting" scripture, or that they are just enacting something in the prudence of time, the fact remains that the authority to change this is coming only from the church, and is bypassing the word of God. Even if one were to argue that the church is sourced to God as well, this only invites the problem of God contradicting Himself - first through the infallible words of scripture, then through the infallible council of the church. Infallible sources cannot be contradictory to one another.

This is why when one argues that elevating church authority or the authority of tradition does not negate the primary authority of scripture, they are merely not following this doctrine through to its logical conclusion. If in the end church authority has the final say, even in contradiction to the teachings of scripture, then who has the true authority? I write this not only with Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox in mind, but likewise Protestants and even groups such as Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. If your church believes something, and yet you can find nothing in scripture to verify it - in fact it contradicts scripture - and yet you defend it with The church declares it to be, therefore it must be so, how much weight are you then placing upon the scriptures? At this point it is revealed that your church's authority has the true power, and scripture is simply given a ceremonial nod. Note that I am not arguing for a kind of "ecclesiastical anarchy" here - church authority in and of itself is not bad. However, if we place authority upon the church that supersedes scripture and permits it to contradict scripture, then we have usurped the authority of God's word. It would be no different than permitting Congress the ability to contradict the Constitution for some superficial reason similar to "both Congress and the Constitution are sourced to the Founding Fathers."

I exhort any one reading this post to understand the importance of the authority of God's word. Christ Himself responded to all exhortations from the Pharisees, scribes, lawyers - even the devil himself - by going to the word of God. Evil was met every time with "it is written." As God said through the prophet Isaiah: "If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn" (Isa 8:20). If you encounter anyone or any group which works against the word of God - whether intentional or unintentional - seek to correct them, or, if this proves impossible, depart from them, just as the apostle Paul warned the Roman Christians to turn away from those teaching doctrines contrary to the Gospel (cf. Rom 16:17). Paul was so adamant about preserving the word of God, in fact, that he stated even an apostle or angel of God could be considered anathema for preaching a contrary gospel (Gal 1:8-9). Scripture is our highest authority because it comes from God, and with God we can find no other higher authority.

I write this post not as an immediate call for repentance, but as a chance to ponder on these things. God bless.

Common Objections to Sola Scriptura

The following is meant as a simple and brief response to some common objections to sola scriptura that exist, particularly those floating around the internet. It's not meant to be a complete defense, and is partially meant to likewise address the inconsistencies stemming from some criticism of sola scriptura.

Before we begin, let's provide an accurate definition of sola scriptura, so that we have some basis of which to draw from, beginning with what sola scriptura is not. The teaching of sola scriptura is not some old man sitting behind a pulpit and banging a Bible against it like an angry monkey with a rock and screaming, "This is all I need! No church no nothin'!" It is not a Joe Shmoe off the street buying a Bible, opening it up, and being instantaneously able to write a multi-volumed systematic theology.

Sola scriptura does not necessarily condemn Christian antiquity, church authority or mere tradition in a sweeping fashion; what it does teach is the idea that creeds, confessions, extra-apostolic writings and individual systematic theologies must be held to one supreme standard: the Word of God.

But the Reformers did not intend by that phrase [sola scriptura] to claim that Scripture was the only religious authority; rather, they uniformly held it to be the supreme authority. It stood alone as the only unquestioned authority. The Reformers had tested the other claimants to religious authority and found them all wanting...But all the Protestant Reformers looked with respect and admiration on Christian antiquity - specifically on the church fathers, the ancient creeds and the doctrinal decrees of of the ecumenical councils - and acknowledged a subordinate religious authority inhering in them. [Payton, James R. Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings, pg. 156]

Another quote:

Sola scriptura literally means, "Scripture alone." Unfortunately, this phrase tends to be taken in the vein of "Scripture in isolation, Scripture outside of the rest of God's work in the church." That is not its intended meaning; again, it means "Scripture alone as the sole infallible rule of faith for the church"...A rule of faith is hat which governs and guides what we believe and why. [White, James. Scripture Alone, pg. 27-28; all emphasis in original]

Authority stems solely in the Word of God, and it is by this authority that all other supposed authorities must be tested. To give a brief quote on this subject:

Genuine authority realizes that it can exist only in the service of Him who alone has authority...The Church will place its confidence only in the simple servant of the Word of Jesus Christ because it knows that then it will be guided, not according to human wisdom and human conceit, but by the Word of the Good Shepherd. [Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Living Together, pg. 109]

To summarize: sola scriptura is the belief that scripture and scripture alone is the sole, infallible rule of faith for the Christian to live by, and while there may exist other authorities or documents in the Christian life, all must be held to the standard set by the Holy Text. With this in mind, let's review some common objections to the doctrine of sola scriptura.

Objection #1: Sola scriptura causes divisions - look at the thousands of Protestant sects!

The main problem with this objection is that it is based on an assumption: the sects existent within Protestantism today are because of sola scriptura. In many ways, it's an example of the post hoc fallacy: "After sola scriptura was introduced, all these groups came into being, therefore the problem must be sola scriptura." This argument is often simply made in a bold, cavalier fashion, with no demonstration of the argument's validity (oftentimes probably because the person making it simply heard it from somewhere else).

One would be challenged, however, to find sects that exist solely because two people disagreed over an exegesis of a passage. Many sects, such as the Methodists breaking away from the Anglicans, happened for reasons that were more political than religious; many more sects, such as the Evangelical Methodists breaking away from the United Methodists, happened because the leadership was falling away and not following scripture (and therefore those breaking away were merely following Romans 16:17). Some sects, such as the Presbyterians, exist not from conflict but historical factors (Presbyterians originating simply in the Reformed Christians of Scotland). Few of these occurred because two people got together and said, "Well you see this verse one way and I see it another, so let's just split!"

Another problem with this argument is that, on the other spectrum, unity among the "apostolic" faiths is not perfect: among those who claim to source themselves to the apostles are the Roman Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, the Coptics, and various Eastern Christian sects. Were these divisions because of sola scriptura as well? If not, why then do they exist? If they exist for reasons beyond interpretations of scripture (and the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox certainly do interpret some passages differently) then why does this standard not extend to Protestantism as well? The fact is, there are divisions among the "apostolic" churches as well as Protestant churches. Those Orthodox or Catholics who gleefully quote 1 Timothy 3:15 and declare that the church is the pillar of truth must then be asked, "Which 'apostolic' church do you believe that pillar of truth to be?

Likewise, those who belong to "apostolic" faiths and yet would claim that their fellow "apostolic" brethren are still brothers in Christ show yet another inconsistency when it comes to attacking the divisions within Protestantism, where many still call themselves brothers in Christ along denominational lines. Those who carry the mantra "Christ founded one church!" to claim that their individual church is the true "apostolic church" must then backtrack to admit that other "apostolic" churches were founded by Christ as well. This despite the fact that none of these churches are in full communion with one another. To ignore the divisions among non-Protestant churches while attacking the divisions within Protestants churches is but a sign of double standards.

All in all, one would almost imagine that divisions simply exist because of the war that rages in our members (cf. James 4:1), and not sola scriptura.

Objection #2: The phrase sola scriptura is never explicitly stated in the Bible.

Bluntly put, this is a silly argument. The word "Trinity" is not found in scripture either, and yet it is clearly revealed in scripture to be a truth. It is very similar to the Muslim declaration fallacy which demands that Christ state "I am God" in the New Testament to prove His divinity. We do not need a term to be present in order to demonstrate its definition.

Objection #3: The teaching of sola scriptura is never found in the Bible.

The importance and supreme authority of scripture is consistently found throughout the Bible. From the Old Testament, we find the Psalmist writing on the importance of scripture as a guide:

How can a young man keep his way pure? By keeping it according to Your word. [Psalm 119:9]

From the prophet Isaiah we find a command regarding the authority scripture has over spiritual and religious matters:

When they say to you, "Consult the mediums and the spiritists who whisper and mutter," should not a people consult their God? Should they consult the dead on behalf of the living? To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn. [Isaiah 8:19-20]

And again, regarding the power of scripture and God's control over it:

"For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return there without watering the earth and making it bear and sprout, and furnishing seed to the sower and bread to the eater; so will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; it will not return to Me empty, without accomplishing what I desire, and without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it. [Isaiah 55:10-11]

In the context of the New Testament, Christ often used scripture against those who came with philosophical or tradition-driven questions: He quoted scripture against their protest of the disciples' picking wheat on the sabbath (Matt 12:3-5; Luke 6:3-4); He used scripture to answer a question about divorce (Matt 19:4-5); He quoted scripture when they did not see the full scope of the parable of the wicked vine-growers (Matt 21:42; Mark 12:10); He accused the Sadducees of not understanding the scriptures (Matt 22:29; Mark 12:24), and quoted further scripture to illustrate this (Matt 22:31-32); He stated that the scriptures testified about who He was (John 5:39); He used scripture against the Pharisaical protest of His use of "Son of God" (John 10:34-35). When often asked questions, Christ asked the person to recite their scripture for an answer: for example, the lawyer regarding eternal life (Luke 10:25-27).

The importance of a scripture was also displayed in Acts: it was often said that all that happened was so that scripture might be fulfilled (Acts 3:18, 13:32-34); Luke accounts that Paul's custom was to go into a synagogue and reason to the Jews from the scriptures, from which He gave "evidence of Christ" (Acts 17:2-3); when the Bereans were confronted by the preaching of Paul, they searched the scriptures to verify it was true, and from this many came to believe (Acts 17:11-12); at the Council of Jerusalem, James not only agreed with what Peter and the brothers had said, but verified it with scripture to show its prophetic nature (Acts 15:13-18).

The most famous and oft-quoted passage of scripture in this regard is found in Paul's epistles:

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. [2 Timothy 3:16-17]

Just before this passage, Paul had told Timothy that "from childhood you have known the sacred writings" (referring to the education by his mother and grandmother; 2 Tim 1:5), and states that the scripture is "able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim 3:15). As Paul explains to his spiritual son, the education and teaching of salvation is inherently found in the scriptures and in the scriptures alone.

In addition, it is worth noting that the phrase translated as "inspired by God" is actually a single Greek word: θεόπνευστος, or "God-breathed." In other words, the scripture is literally breathed out by God, and is the word of the Lord speaking to the churches even today. This special title is given to no other authority in all of holy writ except scripture itself.

Many will interject here with, "But didn't tradition and customs have some role in the apostolic church?" Yes, but it is never placed on so high a level as scripture, nor could it. For example, many quote Paul's reference to a Jewish tradition regarding the names of Pharaoh's magicians (2 Tim 3:8), but this is no different than a Christian referring to the belief that Paul was beheaded. A person can live and die and not lose salvation if they do not know the names of Pharaoh's magicians or what became of Paul after Acts 28, and therefore the knowledge itself is not paramount. Also note that one does lose the meaning of the stories in Exodus or Acts if a person does not know either fact. This information is therefore not complimentary with scripture, but secondary.

Likewise, we see again contradictions between "unwritten traditions" of the various "apostolic" churches. Roman Catholics will claim Purgatory, papal infallibility/supremacy, and various other dogmas as unwritten tradition, whereas most non-Roman Catholic churches deny all of them. Some (though not all) Eastern Orthodox will support Aerial Toll Houses as unwritten tradition while this belief cannot be found in other "apostolic" churches. Yet the majority of apostolic churches believe a good portion of their traditions, dogma or not, to have come from the apostolic period, even if nothing is recorded of them until hundreds of years after the time of Acts (example: the bodily assumption of Mary). Whereas we have an infallible source of written authority within sacred scripture, there is no infallible source of unwritten authority in any church. It is always simply circularly assumed that the individual church's unwritten traditions are infallibly true.

Objection #4: You need a teaching authority to understand scripture.

This is partially true: there is a need, within the religious community, for a guide to scripture and what scripture teaches. That is why the church is here: as a tool of God for the give sound guidance and teaching and instruction for the people of God. That the church is a presence within the Christian community is not at all something that sola scriptura dismisses.

The question is how much infallible authority is then placed on the church, especially when we make demands for a "teaching authority." As we saw in Objection #3, the only infallible teaching authority given in scripture is scripture itself, being the God-breathed commands and records of the Lord. Nowhere is this authority given to an entity or a body of leaders, save perhaps for the original apostles themselves. Yet if we claim that the leaders of today's "apostolic" churches are inerrant and granted knowledge by the Holy Spirit, then we must ignore the errors from those in the past (such as Nestorius or various Roman popes) who held "apostolic" positions yet taught great error. It is also inconsistent with the title of "apostle" within scripture: only Christ made apostles, not men.

What sola scriptura does uphold is that our teaching authority is the holy scriptures itself, and it is by this that churches are bound. As I said in another post, a church which exercises authority should take care to discern if it is exercising authority for the sake of who they are, or for the sake of the dignity of God's word.

Many using this argument will attempt to say that the only reason we know that the scriptures are what they are is by the authority of an "apostolic" church. However, this is an argument that has only come about in recent times, as seen at a Roman Catholic council from nearly a century-and-a-half ago:

These books the Church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, nor simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were as such committed to the Church. [First Vatican Council, Session 3, Ch. 2, 7; emphasis mine]

The Holy Scripture is not dependent upon a fallible institution to declare itself to be holy - just as God is holy by His mere existence, so is His word holy because of its primary source.

On this subject, I think one question that rarely gets discussed is under what focus do we regard the development of scripture: theological, spiritual, or ecclesiastical? I would move that it is primarily both theological and spiritual, and secondarily ecclesiastical. What do I mean by this?

We've already established that scripture is identified as θεόπνευστος, or that which is literally breathed from God. In this manner, scripture is direct revelation from God, and is given by God to His people for their guidance and instruction; the issue of scripture is a spiritual one. Furthermore, flowing from the same thinking regarding scripture's inspiration, if we we are to say that God knew what He was going to tell His people throughout the 1500 years of the Bible's development, then it only follows that He would make sure that His people would receive that scripture. Unless we are going to go the route of Muslims, who believe the scripture was tarnished sometime afterward, and say that it's possible for God to lose His revelation in written format, we have to confess that the preservation and identification of scripture is upheld by God Himself. The issue, then, is also a theological one as well.

In regards to ecclesiastical, it cannot be denied that the activity of individual churches to preserve and care of the manuscripts and traditions of scripture, but this was as a tool used by God and not the sole source of scripture's preservation and identification. Those who would jump to councils that discussed scripture forget that the first ecumenical council to discuss the canon of scripture was the Council of Trent in the 16th century. For Roman Catholics, it took 1500 years for "the church" to recognize what was canon, and for the Eastern Orthodox, Coptics, and other "apostolic" churches, no ecumenical council has infallibly identified canon, save for some local councils which, by practice, do not hold sway over the church entire (otherwise we would have to accept the pro-Arian councils held during the Arian resurgence).

The fact is, God was in control of His Word: how it was given, transmitted, and preserved. Therefore, the matter is primarily theological and spiritual and only secondarily ecclesiastical.

Objection #5: The greatest heretics in history believed in "scripture alone."

The immediate problem with this argument is that it leads to an unavoidable assumption: does scripture, then, teach the existing heresies? There are many who say that Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses believe in sola scriptura - yet are we then arguing that scripture does teach Mormonism and the teachings of the Watchtower Society? If we say yes, we make scripture unclear and therefore God is an imperfect source of revelation. If we say no, then we confess that the heresies are not following sola scriptura, because they are not following what scripture says. In fact, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, and many other organizations are hardly sola scriptura as they believe in an infallible governing authority which dictates what they are to believe. They are therefore, in terms of church authority versus scriptural authority, much closer to Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox than they are Protestants.

Many heretics, in fact, had great favor within the church itself, and therefore had ecclesiastical support behind them that did not rely on scripture. Arius is a famous example, as at one point he and his teachings held great standing within the church and much of the Roman Empire. Indeed, there would have been no Athanasius contra mundum unless there was a mundum to be contra. The world (including most of the church) was against Athanasius, but he persevered in what he knew were scriptural truths.

Objection #6: You need patristics to be put alongside scripture for greater understanding.

The study of Christian history and the teachings of the Church Fathers are indeed important - the question, again, is how much authority is placed on them. Many argue that patristics are to be given the same authority of scripture, as both come from the same source (that is, the church as an entity). The problem with this argument is that it is flawed in regards to the source: the holy scriptures were written by the God-breathed apostles, whereas patristics are sourced to men who were religious but likewise fallible (and I believe they would all agree with me in calling them that).

On that same note, it must be remembered that there exist differences among the teachings of the Fathers, as well as different emphasis. Many times these differences became apparent even in their own writings, such as Photios' writing against the filioque which many Latin Fathers taught, or Thomas Aquinas correcting the views of men like John Chrysostom ¹. This is why it is often emphasized that patristics have to be studied and it then must be discerned where they all agreed. The amazing thing is one could easily do the same with the writings of Luther, Calvin, Owen, Edwards or Hodge, and therefore such methodology is not isolated to patristics.

In any case, it is emphasized here that patristics must come after a sorting of what should be believed and what should not ². My immediate question from this fact: is this ever done with scripture? While you might hear a priest say, "Listen to these teachings of John Chrysostom over the teachings of Gregory of Nyssa in the same area," do we ever hear someone loyal to scripture say, "Listen to these teachings of Paul over the teachings of Jude in the same area." Unless you're in a liberal, heretical church, that simply isn't heard. Yet we are expected to place fallible teachings that may contain error on the same level as the God-breathed, infallible scripture.

Many will interject here that patristics serves as a guide to scripture, otherwise it will not be fully understood. Yet even here we fall into a trap: are we saying that scripture is unclear? If we say so, then we again inadvertently claim that God's word is unclear, and God is incapable of explaining Himself. Charles Spurgeon once said that scripture was like a lion: you have no need to defend it, you simply open the cage and let it defend itself. Yet many would propose that the lion is sick and weakly and in need of defense.
-------
¹ A quotation: Further, Chrysostom (Hom. xlv in Matth.) expounding the text: "Behold thy mother and thy brethren stand without, seeking thee," says: "It is clear that they did this from mere vain glory." Again, on Jn. 2:3: "They have no wine," the same Chrysostom says that "she wished to do them a favor, and raise herself in their esteem, by means of her Son: and perchance she succumbed to human frailty, just as did His brethren when they said: 'Manifest Thyself to the world.'"...In those words Chrysostom goes too far. [Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, TP, Q27, A4; source; emphasis mine]
² "But as with local councils, so with the Fathers, the judgment of the Church is selective: individual writers have at times fallen into error and at times contradict one another. Patristic wheat needs to be distinguished from Patristic chaff." [page 204; Ware, Timothy. The Orthodox Church. Second Edition]