Posted on 02/21/2011 3:15:00 PM PST by blue-duncan
My biographical message at the pastors’ conference this year was on Athanasius who was born in A. D. 298. So I spent a good bit of time studying the doctrinal disputes of the fourth century. The main dispute was over the deity of Christ. Arius (and the Arians) said that the Son of God was a creature and did not always exist. Athanasius defended the eternal deity of the Son and helped win that battle with the wording of the Council of Nicaea: “We believe in . . . the Son of God . . . of the essence of the Father, God of God, and Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father.”
One surprising fact that I did not expect to find was that the heretics protested most loudly over the non-scriptural language of the orthodox creed. They pointed out that the phrases, “of one essence with the Father,” and “one substance with the Father” were not in the Bible. The heretics demanded “no creed but the Bible” precisely so that they could use biblical language to evade biblical truth. For example, they would happily call Christ “Son of God,” and then argue that, like all sons, he must have had a beginning. So to my surprise one form of the doctrine of the “sufficiency of Scripture” was used to undermine Scripture’s truth.
This strategy of evading biblical truth by using only biblical language has been used over and over in the history of the church. For example, in 1719 over a hundred Presbyterian, Congregational, and Baptist ministers gathered in London to deal with the problem that some ministers, after reading Samuel Clark, refused to sign the Trinitarian creeds of their denominations. They had become essentially Arian. What was the key issue? “The technical issue was whether it was enough for ministers to promise to follow only the Scriptures” (Mark Noll, The Rise of Evangelicalism [Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2003], p. 43). The Arians insisted on “no creed but the Bible,” or no language but Bible language. The vote was 57-53 against traditional Trinitarians. Again a form of the “sufficiency of Scripture” had been used to undermine the truth of Scripture.
There are many today who would demand “no creed but the Bible” the same way the Arians did. But we should learn from history that biblical language is not enough when it comes to defending the meaning of biblical language. R. P. C. Hanson explained the process like this: “Theologians of the Christian Church were slowly driven to a realization that the deepest questions which face Christianity cannot be answered in purely biblical language, because the questions are about the meaning of biblical language itself” (R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy [Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1988], p. xxi).
What does this imply for the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture? That doctrine is based mainly on 2 Timothy 3:15-17 and Jude 1:3.
The sacred writings . . . are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work. . . . Contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. In other words, the Scriptures are sufficient in the sense that they are the only (“once for all”) inspired and (therefore) inerrant words of God that we need, in order to know the way of salvation (“make you wise unto salvation”) and the way of obedience (“equipped for every good work”).
The sufficiency of Scripture does not mean that the Scripture is all we need to live obediently. To be obedient in the sciences we need to read science and study nature. To be obedient in economics we need to read economics and observe the world of business. To be obedient in sports we need to know the rules of the game. To be obedient in marriage we need to know the personality of our spouse. To be obedient as a pilot we need to know how to fly a plane. In other words, the Bible does not tell us all we need to know in order to be obedient stewards of this world.
The sufficiency of Scripture means that we don’t need any more special revelation. We don’t need any more inspired, inerrant words. In the Bible God has given us, we have the perfect standard for judging all other knowledge. All other knowledge stands under the judgment of the Bible even when it serves the Bible. For example, the English language serves the Bible by making it accessible to readers of English. But even as English does this, it stands under the Bible and is governed by the Bible. So the English word “yes” cannot translate the Greek word for “no.” The Bible is sufficient to prevent that misuse of English.
In this way the Bible is served by our extra-biblical knowledge in many ways. For example, the word “ant” occurs twice in the Bible (Proverbs 6:6; 30:25). It is never defined. The Bible expects us to know what an ant is from our experience. But if we say that the lesson of the ant is that we should all be lazy, the Bible is sufficient to prevent that error.
So it is with language in doctrinal disputes. Non-biblical language serves the Bible by ruling out some meanings and including others. The word “trinity” and the phrase “one substance with the Father” are extra-biblical terms. But they contain essential biblical truth. To affirm with extra-biblical language that God is “one essence in three persons” (=trinity) and that the Son is “one substance with the Father” is more biblical than to use biblical language to call Christ God’s creature. The sufficiency of Scripture does not dictate the language we use to interpret the Bible; rather it governs the meaning of the language we use. For that it is wholly sufficient.
Submitted utterly to Scripture with you,
Pastor John © Desiring God Permissions: You are permitted and encouraged to reproduce and distribute this material in any format provided that you do not alter the wording in any way and do not charge a fee beyond the cost of reproduction. For web posting, a link to this document on our website is preferred. Any exceptions to the above must be approved by Desiring God.
By John Piper. © Desiring God. Website: desiringGod.org ________________________________________
For the Sola Scriptura Caucus, something to chew over.
John Piper is a great preacher.
The sufficiency of Scripture does not mean that the Scripture is all we need to live obediently. To be obedient in the sciences we need to read science and study nature. To be obedient in economics we need to read economics and observe the world of business. To be obedient in sports we need to know the rules of the game. To be obedient in marriage we need to know the personality of our spouse. To be obedient as a pilot we need to know how to fly a plane. In other words, the Bible does not tell us all we need to know in order to be obedient stewards of this world.
The sufficiency of Scripture means that we don’t need any more special revelation. We don’t need any more inspired, inerrant words. In the Bible God has given us, we have the perfect standard for judging all other knowledge. All other knowledge stands under the judgment of the Bible even when it serves the Bible. For example, the English language serves the Bible by making it accessible to readers of English. But even as English does this, it stands under the Bible and is governed by the Bible. So the English word “yes” cannot translate the Greek word for “no.” The Bible is sufficient to prevent that misuse of English.
In this way the Bible is served by our extra-biblical knowledge in many ways. For example, the word “ant” occurs twice in the Bible (Proverbs 6:6; 30:25). It is never defined. The Bible expects us to know what an ant is from our experience. But if we say that the lesson of the ant is that we should all be lazy, the Bible is sufficient to prevent that error.
So it is with language in doctrinal disputes. Non-biblical language serves the Bible by ruling out some meanings and including others. The word “trinity” and the phrase “one substance with the Father” are extra-biblical terms. But they contain essential biblical truth. To affirm with extra-biblical language that God is “one essence in three persons” (=trinity) and that the Son is “one substance with the Father” is more biblical than to use biblical language to call Christ God’s creature. The sufficiency of Scripture does not dictate the language we use to interpret the Bible; rather it governs the meaning of the language we use. For that it is wholly sufficient.
AMEN!
Whoso keepeth the commandment shall feel no evil thing: and a wise man's heart discerneth both time and judgment." -- Ecclesiastes 8:4-5 "Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?
Start your own thread if you have an interest in the subject. That’s what the caucus designation is for. This thread is for those who come at the subject from a “SOLA SCRIPTURA” perspective.
That is a Catholic heresy...
7 posted on Monday, February 21, 2011 7:03:16 PM by Salvation (”With God all things are possible.” Matthew 19:26)
Thank you for your honesty!
“This article talks about Arianism.”
This is a thread for those that subscribe to “Sola Scriptura”. It is about the “Sufficiency of Scripture” from a “Sola Scriptura” perspective. It is not about Catholicism or for anyone that does not agree with “Sola Scriptura”.
RM please enforce the rules.
Sorry, Salvation, there is no violation of the caucus designation here.
Nor is there any diatribe in the article against Catholicism either in the title or in the content. In this instance, good manners would lead you to ask for your posts to be deleted, and then to leave these folks alone as they discuss a doctrine dear to their hearts.
This issue was addressed last week, iirc, in an article posted by the “dispensational caucus.” The Religion Moderator did not even hint that there was anything wrong with a doctrine-based caucus.
“This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.” (Mat 15:8-9 quoting Isaiah 29:13)
Why do YOU want it as an open thread? Why is it a concern of yours?
You do recall this thread where I was kicked off simply for who I was, don't you, as you were on that thread?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2549830/posts I posted in support of that man and yet the reason for my being *asked* to leave had nothing to do with my actual posts on that thread. See post 50.
Is there some reason that Catholics are demanding rights and privileges which they deny others? Could you explain that rationale to me?
Very well put.
blue-duncan, I included you in this since you claim to be sola scriptura, yet you don’t understand the Godhead AS PER sola scriptura. You, Salvation, and anyone else are welcome to answer the questions in my comments below. Matter of fact, I challenge you to.
Salvation, if what I’ve read about Arius is true, then there are some things I disagree with, but not the below comment from your assesment:
**According to Arius there are not three distinct persons in God, co-eternal and equal in all things, but only one person, the Father.**
A brief example of the confusion trinitarian ‘creeds’ display is shown in the following numbered lines from a posting of the so-called ‘Athanasian Creed’:
**10. The Father is eternal: the Son eternal: the Holy Spirit eternal.
22. The Son is of the Father alone: not made; nor created; but begotten.**
Eternal=begotten??
The following statement is contradictory to the verse which follows it.
**25. And in this Trinity none is before or after another: none is greater or less than another.**
“..I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.” John 14:28
And this:
**12. As also there are not three uncreated: nor three immeasurable: but one uncreated, and one immeasurable.**
??
So there are TWO that ARE created, and TWO that ARE measurable??
More confusion:
**13. So likewise the Father is almighty: the Son almighty: and the Holy Spirit almighty.**
If one is almighty, there is no need for the others. If one needs the others, that one is not almighty.
And these next ones........?????????????
17. So the Father is Lord: the Son Lord: and the Holy Spirit Lord.
18. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord.
19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord:
20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say, there are three Gods, or three Lords.
?????????
Tell me, now who is it that is the author of confusion?1.
How does a ‘trinitarian’ explain this: “But of that day and hour knoweth....my Father only” (the ‘2nd and 3rd persons of God’ don’t know??)?
Did the Son of God inherit his name ‘Jesus’?
Why is the phrase ‘Son of God’ found many times in scripture, but the phrase ‘God the Son’ is found nowhere in scripture?
God is Christ, because of the Father dwelling in him, which is undeniable fact. Most notably in John chapters 5, 8, 10, 14, 15, and 16, Jesus Christ spoke a great deal about ‘the Father’ in him, teaching him all things, telling him what to say, doing the ‘works’, etc. When speaking of God dwelling in himself, the Christ calls him the Father, not the Holy Ghost. (As we know, the Holy Ghost is “..the Comforter..which PROCEEDETH FROM the Father..”. John 15:26)
IN those chapters are some very clear claims by the Christ:
John 5:19 “..the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do..” The Man that God SENT (God doesn’t need to be sent anywhere, he’s already omnipresent) received instruction on EVERYTHING. God doesn’t need instruction on anything, for he knows ALL things.
John 5:26 “For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he GIVEN to the SON to have life in himself.” God can’t be given anything he doesn’t already have. God is the giver of life, not the receiver.
John 5:27 “And hath GIVEN him (the SON) AUTHORITY to execute judgement also, because he is the Son of man.” God is the GIVER of authority, not the receiver.
John 6:37 “All that the Father hath GIVEN me shall come to me..”.
John 8:28 “..as my Father hath TAUGHT me, I speak these things.”
John 10:27-30 “My sheep hear my voice.... My Father, which GAVE them me is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand. I and my Father are one (by now you should see the flow of power consistantly coming from the Father to the Son)
John 14 is the ‘heavy iron’ of this revelation of the Godhead. “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye KNOW him. and have SEEN him.......he that hath SEEN me hath SEEN the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the WORDS (REMEMBER JOHN 1:1??) that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that DWELLETH IN ME(HELLLOOOO?), he doeth the works.” vss 6-10.
Even trinitarians believe that Jesus Christ has two natures: human (mind, soul, and body), and divine. I, and those like minded, believe that the Father IN Christ is the source of all things divine (remember, the Holy Ghost PROCEEDETH from the Father as well).
I will revist tomorrow nite,
Lord bless
will you please add me to the ping list?
He is my sons pastor..I always look forward to my visits there :)
Our Sunday School class is doing his dvd on the Bible.. it is so excellent worth a purchase by anyone interested in the history and sufficiency of the scripture
Zuriel wrote:
“Tell me, now who is it that is the author of confusion?”
OK, I will. You are the author of it. My only question is whether your confusion is deliberately self-imposed or unknowingly acquired. Why do I ask that? Because you are not reading the plain and natural meaning out of the text of the Athanasian Creed, but reading your own confusion into it.
It would seem that you are advocating some sort of modalism, maybe Oneness Pentecostalism. If you would like to self-identify, it might be helpful.
Zuriel wrote:
“Tell me, now who is it that is the author of confusion?”
**OK, I will. You are the author of it.**
So you managed to answer a ‘bait’ question with your own opinion.
The Lord knew how to put forth a ‘bait’ question, so here’s one in his style:
Acts 2:38 says “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized EVERY ONE of you in the NAME of JESUS CHRIST for the REMISSION of SINS, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” The question: Is that verse from heaven or of men?
Bonus question:
Mark 16:16. Does it say, “He that believeth (no comma) and is baptized shall be saved...”? OR “He that believeth is saved and should be baptized..”?
**My only question is whether your confusion is deliberately self-imposed or unknowingly acquired. Why do I ask that? Because you are not reading the plain and natural meaning out of the text of the Athanasian Creed, but reading your own confusion into it.**
Ya know, that question/opinion showed me that your whole response is really just ‘spin’.
**If you would like to self-identify, it might be helpful.**
Oneness Pentecostal. But quoting some learned trinitarian’s views of my organizational affiliation will not answer the questions that you chose not to respond to.
If you have the Holy Ghost you should have all the patience and wisdom to answer the questions from this and my previous post.
Lord bless.
Zuriel wrote:
“So you managed to answer a ‘bait’ question with your own opinion.”
My opinion? Hardly. It’s not my fault if you cannot read the plain and simple words of the creeds. They were written to be clear. In the same way many people of a certain political persuasion today - the most recent good example is one Ezra Klein - claim that the U.S. Constitution is unclear. Really? I don’t think so. The problem doesn’t reside in the document, but in the beholder. If this is the best ‘bait’ you can throw out ... well, enough said. The opinion problem is not mine, but yours.
Zuriel then wrote:
“Acts 2:38 says ‘Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized EVERY ONE of you in the NAME of JESUS CHRIST for the REMISSION of SINS, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.’ The question: Is that verse from heaven or of men?”
Heaven.
Zuriel’s bonus question:
“Mark 16:16. Does it say, ‘He that believeth (no comma) and is baptized shall be saved...’? OR ‘He that believeth is saved and should be baptized..’?”
OK, I’ll bite, A. You do realize, I suppose, that both “believe” and “is baptized” are aorist participles, the first active and the second passive, and that there is really no separating them chronologically? Both are simply to be so. Whether a person was baptized first and then believed (or more accurately, realized he believed), which is the case with infants/children or believed and then was baptized, which is the case with adults, it doesn’t matter. One is to be dealt with according to one’s circumstances. The point is, for the one of whom both are true, salvation is certain. That is what Jesus’ words in Mark mean. So, I have no idea what you think you are getting at. I’ll leave it to you to let me know.
Then Zuriel opined:
“Ya know, that question/opinion showed me that your whole response is really just ‘spin’.”
I see. Would you care to demonstrate how it is?
Then Zuriel self-identified, for which I commend him:
“Oneness Pentecostal. But quoting some learned trinitarian’s views of my organizational affiliation will not answer the questions that you chose not to respond to.”
I don’t believe I was quoting anyone. And I chose not to answer because the problem is yours. It is one of introducing presumed confusion where there is none.
Finally, Zuriel wrote:
“If you have the Holy Ghost you should have all the patience and wisdom to answer the questions from this and my previous post.”
Patience I have, although not, to be sure, anywhere near that of the Triune God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
The Lord bless you back.
**My opinion? Hardly. It’s not my fault if you cannot read the plain and simple words of the creeds.**
So your opinion is based on agreeing on creeds that seem to have been added to, over and over, when a glitch comes up when compared with the Word.
You seem surprised that I regarded the non-answers to my questions as spin. Well, here’s some of your ‘plain and simple’ to clarify:
One line of the creed has the Son proclaimed as eternal; another as begotten.
Begotten denotes a beginning.
Eternal has no beginning.
The line proclaiming the three as being equally great; yet Jesus Christ stated that the ‘Father is greater than I’.
That’s plain and simple FRiend.
What about the question about only the Father ‘knowing the day and hour’?
Didn’t my first post show how the Christ RECEIVED EVERY divine attribute from the Father? (how do you receive something you always had, if you are eternal?)
**I don’t believe I was quoting anyone.**
I failed to use the proper language I guess. I was making the comment, assuming you would address ‘oneness’ with the words of ‘trinitarian experts on oneness’.
I’m not the smoothest with communicating, that’s for sure.
But am definitely past my bedtime, and willing to continue this tomorrow nite.
Lord bless.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.