|
 |
|
| Last time we looked at the problem of false teachers and the warnings in the New Testament about them. We saw that the warnings were necessary because false teachers exist, the devil is subtle, there are serious consequences from listening to such teachers, and we need to act. We move on to consider a basic question concerning knowledge of the truth.
What Is Our Authority?
Imagine a group of leaders from different churches meeting together. They are agreed that false teachers exist and that they constitute a threat that must be countered. “How do we judge whether or not certain people are false teachers?” one asks. “From what the Bible says”, is one reply. “That’s true”, says another, “ but we must also take into account the unwritten inspired tradition handed down from the apostles and preserved in the Church.” “Ah!” says a third. “That ignores the growth of modern knowledge. We mustn’t be bound by the past. We have to use our reason.” That conversation highlights the vital issue at stake here. What is our authority? What is the standard by which we evaluate conflicting teachings.
Where Could We Go?
Three of the main alternatives have already been given. The plainest and simplest answer is the Bible, the Word of God. Christian leaders recognised the need for clarity about this early on, hence the emergence of the canon of Scripture, the recognition that the Old Testament 39 books plus the 27 making up the New Testament were inspired by the Spirit and carried God’s authority. Other books, however profitable, did not have the same status. Admittedly it took a while for this process of recognition to be completed, but generally it was complete by the mid-2nd century. For a full treatment of the history of the canon one of the standard textbooks needs to be consulted.
This acceptance of the Scriptures alone for what Christians were to believe was the position of the early Church Fathers, of the Reformers, and of Evangelicals ever since.
However, there was a parallel development taking place at the same time in an endeavour to preserve the truth and resist false teachers. This concerned the Christian ministry. From the existence of elders in every congregation there emerged one leader who was regarded as the focus of unity, the upholder of the truth, the successor of the apostles, and the preserver of apostolic tradition. This has been spoken of as the monarchical bishop and it is something that has developed into the type of episcopate we see in the Roman, Anglican, and Orthodox Churches. As with our description of the canon of Scripture this is a very simple outline, but one, we believe, true to the more detailed history readers may like to pursue.
It is this that has given rise to the difference between the Roman and Protestant attitudes to Scripture. The Protestant holds to the Bible alone as the authority. Rome maintains that alongside the written Word there is also the oral tradition, preserved by the apostolic ministry of the episcopate, which is equally authoritative. Rome would also maintain that the Lord ensured preservation of the truth through the infallible teaching office of a ministry inspired by the Holy Spirit. This reaches its peak in the infallibility of the Pope, but it belongs to the episcopate as a whole. So the Roman position could be summed up as not the Bible alone, but the Bible and tradition understood as the Church teaches.
Then we come to the position that has come to dominate Protestantism in its broadest sense in the last hundred years. This varies in degree, but not in kind. It dismisses ideas of infallibility, whether of Scripture or the Church. It emphasises the use of human reason in a search for truth wherever it might be found. There is an absence of certainty, and much more openness to all kinds of belief as insights to help us in our search.
Now it has to be said that no responsible Christian leadership would ever dismiss the use of reason. The Bible makes it plain that we are to be renewed in the spirit of our minds. We are to bring our intellects to bear on Scripture, but those intellects must have been made spiritually alive and be instructed by the Holy Spirit. Christians are never called to close their minds and need never be afraid of the truth. Sadly, we have sometimes brought ridicule on our position by a refusal to think.
You can see, though, from the outlines above that there can be no agreement between the three groups so long as they differ on the authority to which they appeal.
So Where Should We Go?
As individuals we must go where we believe the truth is to be found. Roman Catholics believe they have the truth. That’s why they are Roman Catholics. Liberals believe they are right in turning away from the two older positions. We, who are Protestant Evangelicals, believe that it is in Scripture alone that we find the truth we need to believe and practise for our eternal good. There can be no real unity between those holding these three conflicting positions because the differences arising from them concern not just the incidentals of our faith, but issues at the very heart of our salvation. We shall see this in the three articles to follow in later issues of Protestant Truth.
Why Should We Go To Scripture Alone?
Every Protestant Evangelical should know the answer to that question. It is because we believe that God has spoken in Scripture and has guaranteed the reliability of what men have recorded in the biblical books through the work of the Holy Spirit. In 2 Timothy 3:15-17 Paul speaks of the holy Scriptures that are able to make us “wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus”, and he goes on to speak of their inspiration by God. They are breathed out by Him, and through these Scriptures the man of God can be perfect, complete.
Paul was referring to the Old Testament writings here, but 2 Peter 3:16 compares Paul’s writings with “the other scriptures”, and there are other passages in the New Testament which indicate an implicit claim to be the Word of God, a claim which, in time, the whole early Church had no problem in accepting. The argument for this position has been well set out across the centuries right to the present day, and the Roman Church would agree with us on the inspiration of Scripture. It is what it adds that divides us so completely.
One has only to read some of the apocryphal gospels and acts to see the difference in spiritual authority and quality. It is interesting but sad that at, the present time, TV documentaries like Who Wrote The Bible? and the best-selling novel, The Da Vinci Code, are promoting these Gnostic books at the expense of the truth.
What is wrong, though, with adding tradition as the Church of Rome does? In the first place, where tradition is saying the same as Scripture it is true but redundant. Where it adds to Scripture it is, at the very least, suspect, and certainly not necessary. Where it is contrary to Scripture it is wrong. Yet it is very easy for tradition to over-rule Scripture where it exists. It happened with the Jews. It can happen with us if we are not careful. It has certainly happened with Rome. We can see it in matters like the papal claims, the doctrines of transubstantiation and baptismal regeneration, purgatory, confession, indulgences, the position given to Mary, and the significance of the mass in relation to the atoning work of our Lord Jesus. These are not small things, and while it may be claimed that they develop from a biblical seed it has to be said that what has grown bears no resemblance to biblical teaching, and in effect has superseded it.
In theological liberalism and modernism the presuppositions of human reason have replaced Scripture and tradition with its own view of what is possible. Dismissing the supernatural work of an Almighty God there is so much that the reason dismisses as true, because it literally cannot see it. It is spiritually blind.
It may be that someone will say to us, “You have your teachers whose words you accept. Don’t you act as though they are infallible?” It’s wrong if we do. We have to maintain that no human being is infallible, and even though we respect great teachers to whom we owe, under God, a great deal, we must always assess what they say by the Scriptures. Only God’s Word is infallible.
How Then Should We Act?
If we make this bold claim that the Bible alone is our authority and that it is through the Word that the Spirit works, bringing people to a knowledge of God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, we have a responsibility to demonstrate this conviction in the life of faith that we live. Trust must be shown in obedience to the will of God as He has revealed it in His Word.
Our minds, our thoughts must be brought into submission to God’s revelation. Others may help us in this. There are those more mature in the faith and more instructed in the Word who can help us to a closer understanding of the mind and will of God. Always, though, the test must be, “Is this what the Bible says?” We are to be doers of the Word and not hearers only, as James instructs us (1:22).
It is in grasping the truths of Scripture that we should be drawn closer together as members of the Body of Christ. Historically that has not always proved the case. Our proneness to sin includes fallibility and has produced division rather the unity for which our Lord prayed. The divisions among Bible-believing people are an ongoing witness to that. Yet Paul’s words to the Ephesian Christians (4:11-16) remain as a challenge and an encouragement to us. Do we love the Lord and our fellow-believers enough, and believe the Scriptures enough, to take such teaching seriously and resolve to do what we can to help to implement them? Are we prepared for ongoing reformation in our churches?
It is through the Word as well that sinners will be brought to repentance and faith as the Gospel is preached and the Spirit works. There is our authority to tell all men they are sinners, and that those who believe on the Lord Jesus will be saved, “Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever” (1 Peter 1:23).
Originally published in May - June 2005 issue of Protestant Truth. |
|---|
|
| back to magazine page |
next article |
|
