Tag: Theology

I’m going to take a quick break from my Christianity in America series to briefly address a topic related to the textual discussion. There are so many errors with the modern doctrine of Scripture, this being one of the most significant. This doctrinal statement comes from Article X of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.

“We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.

We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid of irrelevant.”

This statement sounds great, until you begin to understand what it is saying. In the first place, the original manuscripts (autographic text), are no longer extant. So the first line of Article X is utterly meaningless. It would be the same as saying, “We affirm that unicorns have rainbow horns, which can be ascertained from historical account with great accuracy.” That is to say, that Article X is purely an assertion to which some undefined number of people agree is correct. The second part of this sentence declares the parameters that support this assertion, “available manuscripts” in addition to the level of confidence, “great accuracy.” The impact of this doctrine, according to the Chicago Statement, is that all copies and translations should be considered the Word of God to “the extent that they faithfully represent the original.”

Let me insert this statement into reality.

1. Inspiration only applies to the original Scriptures, which have not survived, and we do not possess
2. The autographic text of Scripture should only be ascertained from surviving (extant) manuscripts
3. Manuscripts are destroyed and lost every year, we are only to use that which we have access to right now
4. We can only attain the level of “great accuracy” from the extant manuscript tradition
5. “Great accuracy” is not defined, but commonly means, “above average”
6. The Chicago Statement does not describe how to handle passages which are uncertain, other than to say that “essential elements” are not affected
7. The Chicago Statement does not define the “essential elements” of Christianity or the “non-essential elements”

As my reader can see, the Chicago Statement is not a meaningful doctrine. Further, if we consider what the foremost scholars have said in the past decade, we see the frivolity of the statement, “Can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy.” First, let’s examine what the credentialed textual scholars have said regarding what can be ascertained.

“We do not have now – in any of our critical Greek texts or in any translations – exactly what the authors of the New Testament wrote. Even if we did, we would not know it. There are many, many places in which the text of the New Testament is uncertain” (Elijah Hixson & Peter Gurry. Myths & Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism. xii. Quote by Dan Wallace.)

“I do not believe that God is under any obligation to preserve every detail of Scripture for us, even though he granted us good access to the text of the New Testament.” (Dirk Jongkind. An Introduction to the Greek New Testament. 90.)

“The New Testament philologist’s task is not to recover an original authorial text, not only because we cannot at present know on philological grounds what the original text might have been, nor even because there may have been several forms to the tradition, but because philology is not able to make a pronouncement as to whether or not there was such an authorial text” (DC Parker. Textual Scholarship and the Making of the New Testament. 27.)

“We are trying to piece together a puzzle with only some of the pieces” (Peter Gurry. A New Approach to Textual Criticism: An Introduction to the Coherence Based Genealogical Method. 112.)

All of these statements point to the reality that the modern Scriptures are viewed by the scholars as an above average representation of the authorial text. Since this doctrinal statement uses a surprisingly casual definition for how the Scriptures are preserved, I will use a casual interpretation and determine that great, or above average, equates to something along the lines of 80-89%. According to the Chicago Statement, there is not a single translation or copy that shares above 89% consent with the authentic original. If we consider the words of textual scholars, that number could be interpreted to be much lower.

Of course this reality is addressed by simply asserting that, “No major or essential doctrines are affected.” This is an absurd assertion due to the fact that there is no way of actually knowing that to be true. It is more accurate to say, “We believe that no major or essential doctrines is impacted by our uncertainty.” In colloquial English, one might say, “Just trust me, bro.” The bottom line is, we must believe the doctrines and the scholars at face value. If they say, “We only have 80-89% of Scripture,” believe them. I cannot count the amount of times I have been accused of slander for simply pointing to the words and doctrinal statements of the modern scholars and church. Ironically, these doctrines are offensive enough to be considered “slander,” unless they are presented by a man in a bow tie. As a side note, bow ties should only be adorned if you are in a barbershop quartet or are wearing a tuxedo, and do not actually lend to credibility. I could write an entire article (let me know if there is any interest in this) on how informal bow-tie use is an analog for the decay of Western culture, but I digress.

These are the doctrinal structures for the statement, “Inerrant in the original.” Just like modern Christianity, it has the veneer of something true without any of the substance. What exactly does this statement mean if we do not have the original? It means that we must rely on our verification method to demonstrate the quality of our modern texts. According to the scholars and the Chicago Statement, that verification method is capable of certainty up to 89%. That is a lot of missing Scripture at the highest estimate. When you hear, “greatly accurate,” it is important that you hear, “above average.” This is not a Christian doctrine. It is a secular view of Scripture dressed up in Christian language.

You will often hear that the Bible has “more manuscripts than the Iliad,” but scholars accept that we have the full text of the Iliad. Do not be fooled by these modern apologetic lines. Once you realize that the vast majority of New Testament manuscripts are partial copies or come much later in the timeline, you will realize the misrepresentative nature of modern apologetics. The bottom line is, the modern doctrine of Scripture can say, at most, that we have the original to an 89% degree of accuracy, though modern scholars would never put a number on it, because they aren’t even that certain. Abandon this secular doctrine, dear Christian, and embrace your Christian heritage and tradition.

Introduction

I have stated the fact that Protestantism, or Reformed Catholicity, is nearly endangered in the world today. It is important to ask ourselves, “How did the rich tradition of the Protestant Reformation nearly die?” In the last article, I pointed to weak, unlearned, stupid men who allowed wolves to desecrate their churches. That is not the entire story, however. Underneath the men who allowed the church to be compromised at every turn were two doctrinal beliefs: Solo Scriptura and Semper Reformanda. Now let me first be clear, Solo Scriptura is not the same as Sola Scriptura. It is the common misinterpretation of one of the pillar doctrines of Protestantism. Solo Scriptura is the belief that there are no interpretive traditions of Scripture and that every person is correct to read the Bible and interpret it how they see fit. Jerome, speaking of Origen on this matter, stated, “Origen thinks the acuteness of his genius is a sacrament of the church.” In other words, many men believe themselves to be so intelligent that their analysis of Scripture supersedes that of every man who came before them. Now combine this interpretive principle with the battle cry of “Semper Reformanda,” and you have the perfect formula for endless schisms.

Solo Scriptura is a False Doctrine

When people use the term “Sola Scriptura,” they are often using it to describe “Solo Scriptura.” Solo Scriptura is the belief that the only source of Christian faith and practice is the Christian’s private pursuit of the Scriptures alone. This is often called “Biblicism,” which results in Christians to believe that consulting history, confessions, creeds, and commentaries is unbiblical. As a result, this practice produces an infinite number of novel interpretations of Scripture. This is one of the primary apologetics used against Protestants by Rome. They say that without the Papal authority, humans will create infinite amounts of interpretations, and therefore the Roman Pontiff and councils are necessary to decide what is true and what is not.

Turretin says on this matter, “The question is not whether the Scriptures are the rule and standard of controversies. This the papists do not object to, at least they appear to be willing to hold it, although what they give with one hand they take away with the other, arguing their obscurity and imperfection. But the question is whether the Scriptures are a total and full rule, not a partial and imperfect rule” (Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Vol. I, p. 154.) This is the common mode of argumentation for the Roman Catholic. They will agree with a point, and then in the nuance of their agreement, disagree with the substance of what is being said while maintaining that the statement itself is true. They agree that Scripture is the rule and standard while also saying that contradictory councils are also true. They agree that there is one mediator in heaven between God and man, Jesus Christ, while also practicing that Mary and saints can intercede on behalf of the believer. The modern man is not discerning enough to handle this kind of double-speak, and is easily seduced by the Roman doctrine.

Yet, the problem is not Rome, it is the Protestants for abandoning the historical traditions of the church and inventing new doctrines without ceasing. In order to discern this kind of occurrence, you must understand how this form of argumentation works. The entire strategy is to use historical terminology to trick people into thinking that they are grounded in truth, while at the same time using that same terminology to mean something entirely different. In many, many cases, the original terminology has been replaced with a new, subverted definition. The prime example of this being the reinterpretation of Sola Scriptura to mean the same as Solo Scriptura. In the first place, the critique by Rome is correct, if our assumption is that by Sola Scriptura we actually mean Solo Scriptura. Yet, Scripture itself condemns this practice of Biblicism, “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation” (2 Peter 1:20, KJV). Ironically, those who believe that it is Biblical to hold private interpretations of Scripture due to Sola Scriptura, cannot maintain a doctrine of Sola Scriptura because the Bible teaches against private interpretations. In other words, these Biblicists have used the term Sola Scriptura, while at the same time using a definition that, in its substance, means something else (Solo Scriptura).

What is Sola Scriptura

We have already established that Sola Scriptura does not mean, “Every Christian is to interpret the Bible for himself.” What it does mean, is that the Scriptures are the final rule and authority on all matters of faith and practice (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Now, the important question to ask is, “How are we to do that?” The Solo Scriptura crowd believes it is their divine right to create a fresh interpretation of every passage of Scripture. The Roman Catholic believes it is the Roman Pontiff’s divine right to do the same. Sola Scriptura teaches that neither of these are true because no one man can be the final authority, because men are fallible. The fact remains that the Scriptures must be interpreted, “To ascertain the true sense of the Scriptures, interpretation is needed” (Turretin, Institutes, Vol. I, p. 153). So the question is not, “Does the Bible give Christians the true faith?” All Christians agree. The question truly is, “How do we know who has the right interpretation?”

In the first place, the Reformed believed a doctrine of self-authenticating and self-authoritative Scriptures (αυτοπιστος). If the Scriptures are inspired and preserved by God for men, then they must be true, harmonious, without error (inerrant), and cannot fail (infallible) in their purpose. Which is to say, that the Scriptures do have a definitive interpretation and meaning. Even if men misinterpret the Scriptures, this does not stain the true nature of the Scriptures. Turretin once again says, “The ignorance and blindness of man are not to be compounded with the obscurity of the Scriptures” (Ibid. 145.) Therefore, the idea that every man can come away from the Scriptures with his own meaning is incompatible with the doctrine that the Scriptures are without error. The Bible has a definitive message (Nehemiah 8:8). Just because many people believe different things about Scripture, does not logically mean the Bible then has many different meanings. It simply means that some people are wrong, and some people are right.

The Reformed believed in a threefold interpretive method. First, analysis of the grammar, rhetoric, and logic to interpret the meaning of the words in context. Second, comparison of passages to each other. Third, they had a doctrine called the analogy of faith, which they ascertained from Romans 12:6. Turretin says, “The analogy of faith (Rom. 12:6) signifies not only the measure of faith granted to each believer, but also the constant harmony and agreement of all heads of faith exhibited in the clearer expressions of Scripture (to which all expositions ought to be conformed) that nothing may be determined at variance with the articles of faith or the precepts of the Decalogue…For as the Spirit is always undoubtedly self-consistent, we cannot consider that to be his sense which is opposed to other truths delivered by Him” (Ibid. 153). Simply put, Scripture should be interpreted by other Scripture, seeking harmony, because God cannot disagree with Himself. Turretin concludes, “As a prince must interpret his own law, so also God must be the interpreter of his own Scriptures – the law of faith and practice” (ibid. 157).

Sola Scriptura does not mean that men will always interpret the Scriptures correctly, and in fact, the doctrine highlights that men are often in error (which was the complaint against Rome). The Reformed said that all of the Fathers, the councils, and the creeds must be in harmony with the Scriptures in order to be valid. The Sola Scriptura doctrine of the Protestants simply exalts the Scriptures as the final authority in all matters of faith and practice. It does not write off the importance of historical councils, creeds, or the Fathers. It simply recognizes that men can err, and God cannot. This belief of authority recognizes that in some sense, man will never be 100% correct on interpreting every word of Scripture, which takes a certain amount of humility to acknowledge. Despite this truth, it also recognizes that there are necessary truths which are plain to all and cannot be obscured. These are the pillars of the Christian religion, which are often framed as “open and closed hand issues.” In other words, dividing lines which make one Christian or non-Christian.

The Modern Doctrine of Scripture

The modern view of Scripture has decimated ordinary faith and practice in the West. If you survey the average church’s website, none of them include any method by which their church interprets Scripture. They will tell you (vaguely) what Scripture is, but they will not explain in any depth what guard rails they have applied to keep their church in line with what has always been considered Christianity. This is why more traditional churches are gaining traction the US. Traditional churches not only have a standard, organized form of worship, but they also are exceedingly clear on how they will be interpreting Scripture. Rome and the East have their formulation for interpretation, and modern Protestants, with the exception of somewhere around 1% of the churches, do not. The Bible can always be read afresh, with new meaning, and new interpretations. Combine this with the progressive notion of Semper Reformanda (always reforming), and you have a recipe for infinite schisms. As a result, there is no uniformity and no stability in modern Protestant churches.

What the modern Protestant church should desire is not something new, contrary to popular belief. Protestantism was not always a progressive religion or one that conformed itself to every whim of culture or political happening. The 20th century was devastating to Western Christianity. It hollowed out every doctrine, every sacred practice, every sense of distinction, and the result is evident to see today. The abandonment of Sola Scriptura and the incessant need to always reform was a recipe for disaster, because instead of reforming herself to Scripture, the church conformed to the world.

Introduction

The problem with Protestantism is that it cannot be defended by any apologetic method. This is due to the fact that the label itself has always been used by Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. The fathers of the Protestant Reformation referred to themselves as “reformed” or “evangelical.” It was actually the Roman church who labeled them “Calvinist” or “Lutheran” or “Zwinglian,” in hopes of demonstrating that these were traditions of men, and not God. In other words, the term “Protestant” was a polemic label, a pejorative. Later on, many of these Protestants adopted these labels, the most notable being the Lutheran church and Calvinists. Herein lies the chief problem, that as time has passed, every tradition that is not Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox is called “Protestant.” In order to defend something, that thing needs a formal definition. Since the term Protestantism is applied so broadly, it cannot be defended specifically.

Churches within the New Apostolic Reformation, Calvinist Bible churches, Pentecostals, Independent Fundamentalist Baptists, and Methodists are all “Protestants.” If you know anything about these church traditions, you understand just how unhelpful the term “Protestant” is to describe these vastly different traditions. Unfortunately, the terminology is set, and there is very little any of us can do to change the fact that this label is applied so broadly. In this article series, I want to try and define what Protestantism is, and offer evidence to make the case that it is not actually Christianity according to any definition of the term.

This Isn’t Your Father’s Protestantism

In the first place, it is important to acknowledge that the theological tradition of the Protestant Reformation, the Reformed, is nearly dead in the United States and even abroad. While it is true that the label persists, the theological core is akin to an endangered species. The churches born out of the Protestant Reformation were clearly defined. There were counsels, creeds, and confessions. Blood was spilled by the Roman Catholic church in addition to the Protestants pursuing doctrinal purity (See Servetus). In short, the original “Protestants,” the Reformed, fought long and hard to carve out a specific doctrinal legacy for themselves. In the 17th century, when somebody used the term “Protestant,” it meant a specific tradition. Today, the term “Protestant” is just as vague as the term “Evangelical” or even “Born Again Christian.” It doesn’t actually mean anything specific.

This is due to the fact that Western Christianity has been hollowed out of its core doctrines, oftentimes in the guise of “Semper Reformanda.” The reality is, that the Western Christian church needs another Reformation, for she has fallen into the same sins as Rome in the 15th and 16th centuries, and even worse. For those that are not familiar with the Protestant Reformation, some of the chief catalysts were the selling of indulgences to improve the status of the soul, financial corruption of the Vatican, works based faith, spiritual laziness, and neglecting the eternal nature of the faith for the physical present, the sufficiency of Christ, among other things. In modern Christianity, we see parallels to all of this within the realm of “Protestantism” or “Evangelicalism.”

The Wayward Protestant Church

One of the primary sounding bells of the Reformation was the abuse of indulgences. Instead of focusing on inward spiritual transformation to improve the state of the soul, the Roman church was selling indulgences for the same effect. In short, one could purchase repentance with money. The most obvious parallel to this in the modern church is what is often called “The Prosperity Gospel.” In short, if you bless the church, God will bless you. According to Lifeway Research, 52% of churchgoers reported that their church teaches God will bless them if they donate more money. Some of the largest churches in the US teach the most radical form of this message, such as Lakewood Church (45,000 weekly attendees + broadcast), World Changers Church (25,000 weekly attendees + millions TV reach), Kenneth & Gloria Copeland Ministries (76 million households), Trinity Broadcasting Network (120M annual income), Yoido Full Gospel Church (830,000 members), just to name a few.

These numbers are so high, that when you meet somebody in the US that identifies as Christian, there is a more than 1 and 2 chance that they believe in some sort of prosperity Gospel. This is alarming, but the Prosperity Gospel isn’t the only problem in modern Protestantism. Another Lifeway Research study found that 55% of US Protestant pastors allow women to serve as senior pastor, 76% of churches Lifeway identifies as “Mainline Protestant.” Further, according to a Religion in Public survey (not Christian friendly FYI), they found that 1 in 4 Christians believed in ongoing prophecy and prophets.

Despite the fact that 2 out of 3 of Americans describe themselves as Christian, only 16% of self-identified Christians affirm a trinitarian doctrine, according to a very recent Barna Poll from the Cultural Research Center at Arizona Christian University. The overwhelming conclusion of these data points is that American Protestantism has evolved into something entirely different than Reformed Protestantism from the 16-19th centuries. If we take the Barna poll as representative, we can say that at the very most, 16% of American Christians would be considered orthodox by the original Protestants. This demonstrates my point that the term “Protestant” does not mean, “People who believe what the Protestant Reformers believed.” This term means today what it has always meant, which is, “Anybody who is not Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox.”

What is American Christianity?

Well, it is certainly not the child of the Protestant Reformation, as many Roman Catholic apologists will tell you. It shares almost zero theological or traditional ties to the historic Reformation and Further Reformation. In fact, the modern American church believes in doctrines that the Reformers and post Reformation theologians wrote treatises against. The Protestants would have been fundamentally opposed at almost every level to what is called “Protestantism” today. Now, I am not saying that one must believed the Reformed were right about everything in order to be a Christian in America. What I am pointing out, is that American Christianity isn’t remotely close to the Protestant Reformation. It is something altogether foreign to historical, western Christianity.

So why does this matter? Well, this blog has been focused on defending the historical scriptures of the church. Who are the current stewards of the scriptures today? Western Christians. Modern Protestants. If the scholars that serve as stewards for the scriptures are represented by the data, then that means that most of them, even if they were to believe that we have scripture, wouldn’t believe what’s in scripture anyway. I have argued that this is related, though many people call me out for saying such things. Yet, I believe I am correct. If you believe that the Scriptures are not preserved and fully available, why would you think it reasonable that any doctrine is set in stone?

I will end the first article in the series with my answer to the question of, “What is American Protestantism?” American Protestantism, also called Western Evangelicalism, is something that very few would have even considered Christianity 100 years ago. It is an R.L. Stein Goosebumps novel of choose your own religious fancy. It is a build-your-own-avatar religion where you can check and uncheck doctrines, turn up or down various practices with a slider, or even add new customizations. There isn’t one Christianity in America, there are Christianities. So when a Roman Catholic says, “Protestants are leaving for the Catholic Church,” it doesn’t actually mean anything. What exactly are they leaving? They are leaving a choose-your-own-adventure religion that has nothing to do with historic Protestantism.

American Protestantism does not have a crisis of people leaving for Rome or Eastern Orthodoxy, it has a crisis of whether or not it’s Christianity in the first place.