Scripture as Sole Source?

[Note: This post has been edited and updated slightly.]
I recently read a certain LCMS “conservative” blasting a certain LCMS “liberal” for saying that the Bible cannot be the sole source of doctrine. I have no particular love for the blastee. I don’t even know who the blaster is. It is important that the blastee goes much further than simply saying that the Bible is not the sole source of doctrine; he clearly does not believe that the whole Scripture is normative for faith and life, as he believes women should be ordained.

But in this (and likely only this) instance, I’m going to have to agree with the blastee. Scripture is not the sole source of doctrine. At least not in the sense meant by most American Christians. Further, the Lutheran Confessions never say that Scripture is the sole source of doctrine.

What do they say?

1. We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone… (Triglotta, Epit. 1 [emphasis mine])

In this way the distinction between the Holy Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament and all other writings is preserved, and the Holy Scriptures alone remain the only judge, rule, and standard, according to which, as the only test-stone, all dogmas shall and must be discerned and judged, as to whether they are good or evil, right or wrong. (Epit. 3 [emphasis mine]

First [, then, we receive and embrace with our whole heart] the Prophetic and Apostolic Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the pure, clear fountain of Israel, which is the only true standard by which all teachers and doctrines are to be judged. (Triglotta, SD 1 [emphasis mine])

What’s my point? It is obvious that the Scriptures are the most important source of doctrine. It is also obvious that anything being taught by anyone has to be measured and judged by the Scriptures. But if Scripture is the sole source of doctrine, what shall we do with creeds, confessions, and liturgies?

Those are certainly summaries, guides, and witnesses to what the Scriptures do say, but we miss the point if we consider them witnesses only to the Scriptures. What is more important is that they are all, including the Scriptures, testimonies and witnesses to the Word of God, Jesus Christ.

Yet, they remain normative in varying degrees. For example, I am convinced that anyone who cannot agree with the three ecumenical creeds is not a Christian. However, throughout history there have been those (today we call them “heretics”) who wholeheartedly believed that they held Scriptural doctrine. In fact, they did hold Scriptural doctrine. Unfortunately, it was wrong. In other words, the passages they quoted were not wrong, but they took their wrong doctrine from Scripture. It took normative interpretations from, for example, the Nicene Creed, to put them definitively outside the Church. (Of course, I’m speaking historically; their doctrine put them outside the Church even before it was defined by the Council of Nicea.)

It is biblicistic to say that our sole source of doctrine is the Scriptures. No Christian ever claimed that his doctrine was other than Scriptural. The problem comes when two Christians who claim the same Scriptures confess different, contradictory doctrine. Every Christian has an interpretive filter through which he runs the Scriptures. Anyone who denies it is lying. Obviously, for Lutherans that filter is the Lutheran Confessions. And yet, our doctrine is not unscriptural. At the same time–and this is important–we have no other rule, standard, or judge than the Old and New Testaments.

It seems that non-Lutheran traditions see this point clearly when they claim that we are unbiblical when we use the Lutheran Confessions as our interpretive guide (though they do not recognize their own interpretive guides). Another example: what do non-Sacramental churches do with the Nicene Creed when it says “I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins”? It is stated very clearly that the Biblical doctrine is that sins are forgiven in Baptism. But they cannot agree with the Creed there. It seems that the Creed acts, in some sense, as a secondary source for doctrine.

Timotheos

Advertisements

40 thoughts on “Scripture as Sole Source?

  1. I am in agreement with you, Tim. Well said. I think I will copy this note for future reference, if you don’t mind.

    My current basic understanding is as follows:

    We need to remember that one of the major driving factors for creating our Confessions and Creeds in the first place was in response to false teachings. The creeds did not add doctrine so much as clarify doctrine, primarily to help people recognize the false doctrines from the true. The Book of Concord is not new doctrine so much as a re-write of true doctrine in the face of the history of so much false doctrine of the time.

    We use the creeds and confessions the same way today, in determining what/who is espousing correct doctrine. And in this example, I might suggest that both sides of this argument may actually be wrong.

  2. From SA, Part 2, Article II, 15:

    “For it will not do to frame articles of faith from the works or words of the holy Fathers; otherwise their kind of fare, of garments, of house, etc., would have to become an article of faith, as was done with relics. [We have, however, another rule, namely] The rule is: The Word of God shall establish articles of faith, and no one else, not even an angel.”

    Others may wish to play sophistic games by, for example, claiming Scripture is not the sole source of the doctrine of the Trinity because the word “Trinity” is not in Scripture.

    Also under attack, in addition to “sola Scriptura”, is Scriptural perpescuity. Luther discussed this in his _Bondage of the Will_.

  3. Creeds and confessions are not “sources” of doctrine, but witnesss to, and explanations of, the teachings whose source is always and only Scripture.

    This is not an unimportant distinction. Sole source and norm of doctrine is the Bible, not the Bible + whatever you wish to add after the plus.

  4. I think we should remember the fact that our Reformers had a view of Sola Scriptura largely different from the one of contemporary evangelicalism, which is closer to mere biblicism (BTW, Tim, it is not an American thing only).
    Our Reformers had a communal, ecclesial view of how Scripture should be read and understood. THey did not neglect Patristic and medieval theology (notice how often our confessions refer to those authors! The same thing could be said for the Reformed tradition). So, yes, Scripture is the supreme authority, the “norma normans”, but it is not the only “norma”. We are confessional Lutherans, which is very different from being merely a “conservative”??!!

  5. The Confessions most certainly DO speak of Scripture as the sole source:

    “For it will not do to frame articles of faith from the works or words of the holy Fathers; otherwise their kind of fare, of garments, of house, etc., would have to become an article of faith, as was done with relics. [We have, however, another rule, namely] The rule is: THE WORD OF GOD SHALL ESTABLISH ARTICLES OF FAITH, AND NO ONE ELSE, not even an angel. [SA, II, ii, 15]

  6. It seems to me there are three options:
    -our confessional view accepts Scripture as the norma normans, without refusing the teachings of the Tradition as far as they are Scriptural.
    -the Roman position where Scripture and Magisterium are put on the same level (but since the Magisterium is the only interpreter of scripture, it has authority on it)
    -the position of many of our Evangelical brothers, with its nave Biblicism. Nave because none of us works in a theological vaccuum.

  7. Come on now. You are all confusing source and norm. They are not the same. I know that I’m going to sound like a “damned liberal” here, but the Word of God is not co-extensive with the Holy Scriptures. Before you knee-jerk your keyboard out the window, I’ll explain: there are some who say that the Scriptures *contain* the Word of God. I’m NOT saying that. Ok? Everyone calmed down? What I’m saying is fundamental to catholic Christianity: Jesus Christ is the eponymous Word of God from which all other things we call the Word of God take their name. (I know, that’s a little redundant.)

    Thus, in reality, only Jesus deserves to be called the sole source of doctrine, which, of course, means nothing other than “teaching.” (Well, we could be even more creedal, and say that the Father is the source of everything, but that’s a little off the topic.)

    It is simply not historically accurate to say that the Scriptures are the sole *source*. What about the Te Deum? What about the Apostles’ Creed? What about the Apostles’ teaching that wasn’t written down? I’m not arguing that any of those can determine (or “establish,” to use Luther’s term) doctrine against or over the Scriptures we have, but they certainly are sources. The commenters here are placing too much weight on the word source. It simply cannot be identical to the Old and New Testaments. In other words, there is Someone prior to both the Old and New Testaments. That is not to say that we can pretend to have some secret knowledge about Jesus that goes against the authoritative Word about Him (the N.T.); my argument is simply about priority, and I think it’s an important one in our American context where arguments are centered around Biblical texts themselves, rather than the one to whom they point, and Who testifies to Himself through and by them.

    To be absolutely clear: I do not believe the Bible *contains* the Word of God, as if there could be some remainder that is not the Word of God. However, it is a derived, not an ultimate, authority. Come on Lutherans! The One to whom the Old Testament points, and Who speaks in the New Testament by means of His chosen witnesses is the ultimate authority–even the ultimate, and sole *source*.

    That’s my point, and perhaps I wasn’t all that perspicuous, but let’s have a civil discussion, ok? I’m not trying to be innovative; just trying to hash through something. That means, we all point to the same Confessions; let’s talk about what they mean, not just quote them.

    Tim

  8. Hmm,.. I thought this discussion was progressing civily.
    🙂

    The context in which the creeds and confessions have been presented to me is in context of explaining existing doctrine, becoming a source of doctrine mostly by default. Not because they where written to create doctrine, but written to record doctrine.

    If we talk specificially about “The Source” then I agree with Tim. If we are talking about where we can find the doctrine from that source written down, they obviously we look to the various books, letters, creeds, confessions, etc. where we find that doctrine recorded for posterity and study. And I think I am still in agreement with Tim.

    Keeping in mind there are a lot of books, letters, creeds, confessions, etc. that record false teachings and doctrines. And we require Christ as our “Sole Source” to teach us the True from the false.

  9. Tim:

    You wrote: “It is simply not historically accurate to say that the Scriptures are the sole *source*. What about the Te Deum? What about the Apostles’ Creed? What about the Apostles’ teaching that wasn’t written down? I’m not arguing that any of those can determine (or “establish,” to use Luther’s term) doctrine against or over the Scriptures we have, but they certainly are sources.”

    But what do you find in the Te Deum, the Apostles’ Creed, etc. that you do not find in Scripture? Nothing. They only make clear how Scripture itself ought to be read and interpreted.

    Yes, Jesus is the ultimate “source.” He authenticates the Bible, not the other way around. But where do you find this Jesus? Only in His Word, Scripture.

    The real possible pitfall of you line of thinking isn’t liberalism; but a tacit denial of Scripture’s sufficiency ala Rome and Orthodoxy.

    I don’t think you’re doing this, but it’s important to note that there are more ways than the the liberal and fundamentalist ways of getting this wrong.

  10. Tim

    We are brothers in many ways and I feel a word of clarification is in order.
    First, bravo on going to the confessions on this, but the Epitome states clearly enough that scripture is the sole norm and standard for doctrine. As a result, the holy and blessed saints of the early church were able to construct statements of faith such as the Nicene Creed (to say nothing of the Apostle’s and Athanasian Creeds).
    Now, before I go into some weird rant on “Sola Scriptura” let me try this hermeneutical slant on the “Liberal” vs. “Conservative” blasting that you read. This is an issue that is trying to creep into our synod and I step on it whenever I can.

    The first question I want to ask the liberal (re: other sources for doctrine) is
    1) “What other sources do you find acceptable apart from scripture?”
    2) Then after finding out the list, I would want to know if any of the items were contrary to the scriptural witness we have.
    3) After throwing the junk out, I can only imagine that we would be left with the confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church (call me biased, I make no appologies)

    From here we can get to the heart of the matter and ask
    1) Are the confessions reliable? [ANSWER: YES. and my yes is yes without any of that B.S. “insofar” crap.]

    2) Why are they reliable? [ANSWER: Because they are true expositions of scripture.]

    3) Finally, when we look at expositions of scripture (aka “understandings” or “confessions of”) scripture, do we say that we draw doctrines from THAT or are they, by their very confesssional nature, already doctrines derived directly from the scriptures? [ANSWER: Confession of truth = “doctrinal position”. ]

    So the fact, as I see it, is the “Sola Scriptura” is still the norm. We don’t use other sources to derive doctrine, but we do refer to them as further witness to the proclamation of scripture.

    Could I be wrong? Sure, but I don’t think so. I too am open to correction/clarification.

    Thanks for letting me post! Go Mariners!
    CC

  11. John 13-27,
    You make a very valid point, and I agree with you about which error is closer to my position. I also agree that we find the Jesus in whom we believe in the Scriptures. They testify of Him.

    It’s not that there are things in the Te Deum, the Creeds (check the Athanasian), or anywhere else that I don’t find in Scripture. But that’s not really the point. The point is that many Christians *do not* find them there. We have norms other than the Scriptures, and we hold them because they are normed by the Scriptures.

    This may be an example: where do we get the doctrine of infant baptism? As the Baptists point out, it is not in Scripture in so many words. Yet, because the Church has always held original sin to apply to infants as well, we baptize them. They need salvation as much as anyone else, and the Lord has given us no other means by which they can be saved. Is our sole source (it surely is the most important) for teaching infant baptism the Scriptures? Why appeal to how Church Fathers understood the Scriptures at all? Why look at the practice of the Church at all? If our sole source is the Scriptures, we should look there and only there. Of course I believe the Bible supports and teaches the baptism of infants (as sinful humans); but that’s exactly the debate, isn’t it?

    Even though you’ve been dealing with EO on your blog, I just don’t think that’s the danger for most of American Christianity, and especially not for most of the people who will be in my future congregations. Perhaps Rome is a little closer, but there is still some Romaphobia in LCMS congregations. Anyway, I don’t really disagree about any of the points you make, but I’m not crossing any rivers, nor do I think most members of LCMS churches are.

    Thanks,
    Tim

  12. Tim, you state: “Christianity, and especially not for most of the people who will be in my future congregations.”

    I, for one, respect your position since my children/family and I could very likely be amongst those you minister to.

    >>>

    Lemme throw out a thought racing around the back of my head, while reading this thread. Maybe you all answered this already and I’m just naively missing the point.

    First, we accept the Bible books as inspired works. Having said that, we also tend do consider other documents such as creeds, confessions, BoC, and the personal works of many church leaders/reformers, etc as inspired. Likewise, every proper sermon we also consider inspired. We certainly consider Martin Luther’s writings as inspired. And what about modern authors such as C.S. Lewis?

    Consequently, everything we consider “inspired” could be also be considered a source of doctrine.

    It is easy to understand why someone would wonder about the distinction between generally inspired works, and “the” inspired Word of God recorded in the Bible.

    I personally do not struggle with these distinctions. I believe I am at least astute enough to understand the “source” of “true” doctrinal works comes from Christ as recorded in the Biblical accounts.

    Am I tracking correctly with this? Or have I slipped a rail here somewhere?

  13. I think it all depends on your definition of inspired. I think inspiration is a consequence of believing the Scriptures are the Word from Christ that testifies to Him. It really shouldn’t be a starting place.

    I guess I wouldn’t call other writings inspired, because it has the tendency to confuse the issue of the inspiration of the Scriptures.

    Tim

  14. Makes sense to me, Tim.

    Speaking of definitions let me run this argument by you.

    {I apologize for getting long winded.}

    As you say, “The Scripture is the Word(s) God inspired to testify to Him”, and I say that God doesn’t say things twice. I see no reason for us to view other writings as adding anything new to what God/Christ has already laid out for us correctly the first time.

    So, either the Scripture is sole authoritative source for the Word, or it is not.

    >>>
    It seems logical to apply this same argument to Scripture as the sole source of doctrine.

    Did God inspire our doctrine within the Scriptures? If yes, then do we really need to wonder if God re-inspires it again in other works?

    I say Yes to the first question, No to the second.

    >>>
    What I personally confess right now is that I view Scripture as the Sole Source of both inspired Word and doctrine.

    I also believe faithful men where inspired to write our creeds and confessions. Not as a rewrite of existing scripture or doctrine, but rather as crutches to help guide us along the narrow straight path. (Crutches are important, btw, especially when one is injured. Such as we are spiritually injured by sin.)

    But maybe these faithful men where not inspired so much as motivated.

    So maybe I should say that I believe faithful men where motivated to write the creeds and confessions. Whereas God inspired the Bible.

    >>>
    Regardless of my conservative or liberal leanings, I am confident in stating that I embrace the Scripture as the sole source of both Word and doctrine.

    Likewise, I claim there is no earthy church or doctrine that adds anything new or better to what God already teaches us through the Spirit with the Bible. This includes our creeds and confessions. Because everything in our creeds and confessions is derived from the Bible.

  15. Lawrence quoth:
    “As you say, “The Scripture is the Word(s) God inspired to testify to Him”, and I say that God doesn’t say things twice. I see no reason for us to view other writings as adding anything new to what God/Christ has already laid out for us correctly the first time.

    So, either the Scripture is sole authoritative source for the Word, or it is not.”

    God does say things more than once. That’s why we have four Gospels. I would say that Christ is the sole authoritative source of both the Scriptures and the Word (since it is in Him that God is made known).

    Tim

  16. I see what you mean.

    I always viewed the Gospels as four parts of the whole Gospel. Rather than four separate Gospel accounts. I need to think on this a while.

  17. Well, they are the whole Gospel of Christ, and they are not completely separate, of course. But I do not think it is incidental that we have the account of Jesus from four different angles.

    Tim

  18. No, Indeed. Certainly not incidental. Thank you for this discussion though. Lots of things for me to think about this weekend.

  19. “I would say that Christ is the sole authoritative source of both the Scriptures and the Word (since it is in Him that God is made known)”

    Amen, brother!! Now, could we say that Christ should also be the norm of our interpretation of Scripture? Do we have a Christ-centered hermeneutic?

  20. Tim,

    I’m sorry, but you’re wrong here. The Scriptures are the sole source of doctrine. You’re getting the cart before the horse; liturgy, creeds, etc. follow after the Scriptures.

    Re-read the entire intro the the Book of Concord. There you’ll see that the sole source of doctrine for the Lutheran Church are the Scriptures.

  21. There you’ll see that the sole source of doctrine for the Lutheran Church are the Scriptures.

    Yes, but we also very clearly have other authoritative documents (the Book of Concord), even if they come AFTER und UNDER Scripture.
    Anyway, Christ is the one that has authority over the Church. I do believe that the Bible is the Word of God, but I am not a Biblicist.
    Also,I read yesterday an interview of Dan Wallace who says that “Unfortunately, too many evangelicals make Christology the handmaiden of bibliology, rather than the other way around”. Tim, does it somehow resonates with what you’ve said earlier?

  22. “Other authoritative documents.”

    I certainly recongize the authority of appropriate creeds and confessions in addition to “the Word” recorded in the Bible.

    I think in some measure we are debating semantics as much as doctrine/theology.

    If we speak of the source of doctine, then the Bible/Christ is it. If we speak of other written works, then we find doctrine recorded in a variety of sources (creeds confessions).

    I’m not sure if this is Tim’s context, but this is the context in which I read his statements.

  23. Chi Chi,
    The more I think about it, the more I think infant baptism is a good test case.

    We have to grant the Baptists that the baptism of infants is nowhere mentioned in the Scriptures. No doubt they believe that the Scriptures are the sole source of doctrine as well. Where do we get our argument? From original sin? Fine. But the fact remains that infant baptism is not in the Bible. I’d guess it’s pretty clear in their eyes that our sole source of doctrine is not the Scriptures.

    It seems to me that any literalistic understanding of the Scriptures precludes using Church Fathers or the Lutheran Confessions for settling disputes about Scripture, if our sole source of doctrine is the Scriptures.

    That, I think, is where this disagreement comes out. I don’t think you and I disagree in how we actually use Scripture, and, frankly, I’m not sure my position really changes anything about how I use Scripture. There is also the priority question, which must be Christ and not the Scriptures (even if we cannot know anything about Christ outside the Scriptures).

    Tim

  24. Tim wrote: “We have to grant the Baptists that the baptism of infants is nowhere mentioned in the Scriptures. No doubt they believe that the Scriptures are the sole source of doctrine as well. Where do we get our argument? From original sin? Fine. But the fact remains that infant baptism is not in the Bible. I’d guess it’s pretty clear in their eyes that our sole source of doctrine is not the Scriptures.”

    Don’t take the Baptists’ (or Romanists, or Orthodox’s) bait. Our argument isn’t “Well, infant Baptism isn’t in the Bible, but we teach it anyway.”

    No. Infant Baptism is taught by Scripture implicitly. Just as the relationship of the two natures in one Christ, the economy of the Trinity, etc. are taught implicitly.

    It isn’t just what Scripture explitly teaches about original sin. It is also Scripture’s clear teaching on the nature of Baptism, divine monergism, the nature of faith, the correlation of circumcision to Baptism, the Baptism of households. All these things are explicitly taught in Scripture and implicitly teach infant Baptism.

    How can I show this? The Baptist doesn’t only reject Scripture’s teaching on Infant Baptism. He also rejects Scripture’s teaching on the nature of Baptism, divine monergism, the nature of faith, the correlation of circumcision to Baptism, the baptism of households.

    Why reject all this? Because these things implicilty teach infant Baptism. To teach these teaching would be to teach infant baptism!

    Also, much of what the Church has rejected as heretical she has rejected because Scripture implicitly rejects the same.

  25. My views are the same as John13-27 with regard to Baptism.

    I think the Bible message is pretty clear that Baptism is for everyone, and that everyone includes children. It is also clear that we are all Gods children and Jesus wants us to come to Him. And Baptism is one of the ways (if not the way) we come to Him.

    A few of many passages about Baptism:

    >>>
    Acts 18:25:
    “He had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John.”

    It would appear that instruction in the way of the Lord is a part of Baptism. This leads some to understand that faith and understanding are required prior to Baptism.

    But then we come to the last phrases, he spoke and taught accurately, “though he knew only the baptism of John”. Here the context clearly reflects that this man’s baptism was the critical stage in his becoming fervent in spirit and correct in his teaching. It had nothing to do with his technical knowledge of the ways of the Lord, it was the work of the Spirit through Baptism that fuels this man’s “true” Faith and correct teaching.

    >>>>>>
    Matthew 21:25:
    “The baptism of John, whence was it? From heaven or from men?” And they argued with one another, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will say to us, ‘Why then did you not believe him?'”

    Jesus pointing out to the temple priests that Baptism is either from Heaven or from men. If from man, then what’s the point? It only has meaning if it comes from Heaven. Point is that man does not take Baptism, man is given Baptism. (We view Communion the same way).

    >>>
    Matthew 19:13-14:
    Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people; but Jesus said, Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the Kingdom of Heaven.

  26. I have neglected to mention it so far, but I think a final example will prove that I’m right and you all are wrong 😉

    Peter on Pentecost. His source of doctrine was not the Scriptures, but Christ Himself. Obviously, he didn’t have the New Testament and he was interpreting the Old Testament in a completely new way that the Jews would not have recognized (see Acts 2:22ff.). This should prove conclusively that Christ, and not the Scriptures (which authoritatively testify of Him) is the *sole* source of doctrine for the Church. The Scriptures, then, are derivatively the authoritative and sole norm and judge of all doctrine.

    One more: we have three solas in the Lutheran Reformation, not one. You can say that sola gratia and sola fide are taken from the Scriptures, but where do we get sola scriptura? From the Scriptures? No. No matter how we argue about the Scriptures, it makes no difference if we do not have faith in Christ. Christ is the subject, Christ is the object, and Christ is the content. If you substitute the Scriptures in any way, you’ve idolized them.

    Thanks for the discussion.

    Tim

  27. It would seem that there is a tendency to want one sola of the reformation without the others, or to think that one sola is somehow above the others. This is a strange leaning.

    To say that Scripture is the only source of doctrine is to say that there is no more doctrine beyond the Scriptures. That is to say that all of God’s divine knowledge, ALL OF IT, is contained in the Scriptures, for there can be no doctrine beyond the Scriptures, even in the mind of God. This is to make the Scriptures on par with God himself. This is called “Fundamentalism.” Beware of it.

    God is the only source of doctrine. The sole rule and norm for doctrine which he has revealed is the Scriptures. There is a BIG difference. The two should not be misconstrued.

  28. The Confessions do not pit Christ against the Scripture. Nor do they seek to find doctrine outside the Scripture. No more than they would seek to find Christ outside the Scripture.

    So what do the confessions mean when they say, “The rule is: The Word of God shall establish articles of faith, and no one else”?

    No one claims that all of God’s divine knowledge is in the Scripture; only all that God has revealed.

    Do you know of a source of special revelation other than Scripture?

  29. I’ve already given the example of Peter on Pentecost. Jesus is Peter’s sole source of doctrine, not the Scriptures.

    Tim

  30. You miss the point. It’s not about what I do and where I read it. It’s about what Peter did, and where he got the doctrine he preached.

    Tim

  31. No, I’m on the point exactly.

    You can’t pit Jesus against Scripture.

    Where did Peter find the Jesus he preached in his Pentecost sermon? In Psalm 16 and Psalm 110. Scripture. The two always go together.

    Again, where did you find Peter’s Acts sermon?

  32. I don’t believe I’m the one pitting Jesus against Scripture. In fact, I’m trying to correct the inverted relationship that has prevailed for too long in American Christianity. The reason you can’t pit Jesus against Scripture is because Jesus is the source of the Scriptures.

    It’s fine to say that we find Peter’s sermon in the Scriptures, but it is not correct to say that Peter got his Jesus only from Psalm 16 and 110. That is biblicism out and out and it’s near idolatry. Jesus is the source of Psalm 16 and 110, not the other way around. And it makes all the difference in the world which way you view it.

    Tim

  33. So, your only point is that Jesus authenticates Scripture and not the other way around? Fine. I obviously agree.

    Just don’t go looking or listening for Jesus outside of Scripture. The “Jesus” you will find will be an imposter.

    I didn’t say Jesus got his Jesus only from Scripture. He also got his Jesus from Jesus.

    But you and I are not Peter. “The Word of God shall establish articles of faith, and no one else.”

    Whether it’s the charismatic’s “Jesus” of experience, the Roman “Jesus” of Popes and Councils or the Orthodox “Jesus” of Fathers and Holy Tradition, they all have one thing in common. They all found their “Jesuses” outside the Word of God.

  34. And, lest I be mistaken for a biblicist: Listen to testimony of the Creeds and Confessions because they point you to Scripture, and therefore to Christ, its Author.

  35. “the Creeds point you to Scripture”

    Wrong again John13-27.

    Listen to the creeds because they point you to Christ. Period. The only creed that confesses Scripture is “This is my Bible. I can do what it says I can do, etc.”

    Scripture points you to Christ too, but a creed is sufficient for knowing Christ. Actually, faith is sufficient, and it can imparted through Baptism—not Bible alone.

    And this is not true because there are two contradictory sources of doctrine.

  36. Isn’t there a line in the Nicene Creed “according to the Scriptures”?

    Why, yes there is. What is that doing in there!

    The creed is pointing us to Scripture.

    Of course that is nothing more than to point us to Christ Himself. Why must the two be pitted against one another?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s