Debate on Sola Scriptura...

Just wanted to let all who read this blog (if there's anyone reading it at all, haha) know that there will be a debate on the issue of Sola Scriptura on Sunday, July 16, 2006 @ 10 EST, 9 central. The debate will be held in the Christian section of Paltalk under the room name "Moderated Debate on Sola Scriptura". The debate will feature "Lawjock", a Roman Catholic attorney, and "Apostolic Defender", a recent convert to Protestantism from the RCC. Hope to see you all there, as assuredly, it will be a fascinating affair!

A Quick Comment on Sola Scriptura

I've been noticing a lot of talk lately regarding the doctrine of "Sola Scriptura", especially within the blog world. My friends over at Per Christum, a Roman Catholic blog, even posted a few entries regarding the doctrine. This has prompted myself to take another look at "Sola Scriptura", a teaching which I carefully examined about six months ago while I was attempting to find out where the Lord wanted me theologically and denominationally.

Though I am a firm believer in Sola Scriptura, I'm no expert on the subject. As I read Charles' entries over at Per Christum, and a variety of other writings pertaining to the doctrine, the deep theological and philosophical arguments for and against it are completely over my head...for now, at least. This doctrine is assuredly something I need to study further, especially since it greatly affects how I view scripture and determines where my authority lies. But, looking into it the past few weeks has brought fresh light to the whole issue - light that was for some odd reason not available around Christmastime when I first critically examined Sola Scriptura.

My main concern with Sola Scriptura was not that the Bible did not teach it. The Bible clearly (perpiscuity, my friends...) teaches that scripture - not anything else - is profitable for doctrine. What bothered me was the historicity of the doctrine. Did the early church believe it? Was it around during the time of Justin Martyr and Irenaeus? Reading the fathers through Roman Catholic spectacles surely would lead one to believe that Sola Scriptura was unheard of in the early church, which is what happened to me when I first examined the doctrine. What I've found this time around, appealing to Protestant sources, is that the patristics would not be opposed to Sola Scriptura at all...in fact, they probably held to it unknowingly to some degree.

The patristics always appealed to scripture when dealing with doctrinal issues, and even practical ones. Moreover, rarely will you find a patristic appeal to tradition as a source of authority before appealing to scripture. Is that Prima Scriptura? - Maybe. But I don't think they'd be opposed to Sola Scriptura by any means. Dr. Robert Webber, a well-known conservative Episcopalian scholar, notes:

"In the year 397 at the Council of Carthage, the books that now comprise Scripture...were prescribed as the limit of the canon. In this action the church acknowledged that the apostolic traditions written in the Scripture and handed down by the bishops of the church constituted the church's final authority. No other writings, synods, councils, or bishops could assert another new authority."

Webber goes on to say:

"Scripture did not stand alone as a thing apart from the church, the creeds, or the Fathers. Indeed, that the scripture was for the church the final, ultimate, and single authority cannot be challenged."

This view of scripture can even still be seen within the Catholic church in the twelfth century, with Gratian in his Decreetum posing this question:

"Who does not know that the Holy Canonical Scripture is contained within definite limites and that it has precedence over all letters of subsequent bishops, so that it is altogether impossible do doubt or question the truth or adequacy of what is written in it?"

Webber argues that Sola Scriptura (or at least its infantile form) was replaced by the current Roman Catholic position regarding authority (Scripture + Tradition + Magisterium) during the Medieval church.

"The shift from the authority of Scripture to additional or competing authorities did not occur until the fourteenth century."

I highly doubt Sola Scriptura is something a pesky German monk concocted in his spare time. It's gotta be the truth! - This personal infallible evangelical pope declares it to be so!

The Bible stands tho the hills may tumble,
it will firmly stand when the earth shall crumble;
I will plant my feet on its firm foundation,
for the Bible stands!

Photo courtesy of Dallas Theological Seminary

It's been a while...

Well, I'm going to get this thing going again - So much to say, so little time to blog!

Sad Day for the Orange and Black...

Yes, my Flyers lost 7-1 last night to Buffalo, and were forced to shake hands with the hated Sabres and exit the NHL playoffs. I've been a huge Flyers fan since I was a little kid, and its hard for me to see them go out of the playoffs like this, especially since there were such high expectations for them heading into the season. Three things I think need to be changed in order to succeed next season are:

1. The Defensive Corps. Big, slow, "clutch-and-grab" defensemen like Derian Hatcher, Mike Rathje, Chris Therien, Joni Pitkanen (I dont care how good they say he is...), and Denis Gauthier need to go. They are absolutely useless in the "new NHL". It absolutely astonished me that Bobby Clarke went out and got Gauthier - a huge slow defenseman - at the trading deadline when they needed speed and skill back on the blue line in order to succeed down the stretch and in the playoffs. Many people are calling for the departure of veteran defenseman Eric Desjardins, but I disagree. Desjardins, though old and pretty slow, makes a good partner for a young, speedy defenseman (Like Freddy Meyer, for example) on the third defensive pairing. He would be a good fit for that role next year. Desjardins also provides priceless veteran leadership, as he is the only link left from the "glory days" of the mid-late 1990's Flyers.

2. The Head Coach. Many newspaper articles came out today defending Ken Hitchcock and saying that his job should not be on the line. I disagree completely. Ken Hitchcock was a good coach in the old-NHL system, but has shown not only complete incompetence, but stubborness, regarding the new-NHL. The best candidate for the new head coaching position is Terry Murray, the Flyer's assistant coach. Murray was the head coach of the Flyers in 1996-1997, when he took a team of scrappy players who were doubted every step of the way all the way to the Stanley Cup Finals. Terry Murray has great skill, coaching ability, and experience, and he would surely be a good fit for the head coaching position.

3. More "New-NHL" style players. The 2005-2006 Flyers roster was packed full of "old-NHL" style players, and it got them absolutely nowhere. Buffalo showed the Flyers that speed and skill win out against size and strength in the new-NHL. Here are a few players (that wouldn't be all that hard to get) who will be free agents after the season that I'd like to see the Flyers pick up in the off-season:

- Teppo Numminen (D, Buffalo Sabres)
- Mark Recchi (RW, Carolina Hurricanes)
- Cory Sarich (D, Tampa Bay Lightning)
- Colin White (D, New Jersey Devils)
- Mike Sillinger (C, St. Louis Blues)

And for goodness sakes, tell Bobby Clarke to call Kevin Haller and tell him to come out of retirement and play for the Flyers next season! If there ever was a quick, speedy, low-penalty risk defenseman that has worn the orange and black, it was Kevin Haller.

Next year...the Stanley Cup is gonna pay a visit to Philly, for sure.

Photo courtesy of philadelphiaflyers.com.

The "F" Word

No, not that "F" word. I'm talking about the "religious 'F' word" that is hurled about mercilessly by both Christians and non-Christians alike - usually in a very demeaning manner. Yes, I'm talking about the term "Fundamentalist". This descriptive term is being employed by many to classify a certain type of Christian. Whether it's Larry King, George W. Bush, Rick Warren, or the rank/apostate National Council of Churches using the term, its almost always in a negative sense. It's also been brought to my attention that this seems to be a pet term of Roman Catholic apologists to refer to "anti-Catholic" (which, may I add, is a very ambiguous term) Protestants, who reject key RC doctrines and hold to the cries of the Reformation without apology. Don't believe me? - Check out the RC apologetics site "Catholic Answers", where you'll find the article "How to Train Your Dog" right next to "How to Talk to Fundamentalists" (kidding, of course, but you catch my drift.)

Who are these "Fundamentalists", and why do people share such disdain for them? Well, simply put, a Fundamentalist is a Christian who affirms the following:

1. The Inerrancy and Infallibility of the Holy Scriptures.

2. The Literal Rendering of Holy Scripture (unless non-literal is clearly intended)

3. The Virgin Birth

4. The Deity of Jesus Christ

5. The Trinity

6. The Substitutionary Atonement of Christ

7. The Literal, Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ

8. The Authenticity and Reality of Miracles

9. The Second Coming of Jesus Christ

10. Separation from Apostasy and Wordliness

Thought there were only five Fundamentalist distinctives? I used to as well, until I read "The Fundamentals", a series of theological essays that were compiled during the Fundamentalist/Modernist Controversy in the early 1900's. From reading "The Fundamentals" I have gleaned, at the very least, these ten distinctives that make a Christian a Fundamentalist.

Why the negativity towards Fundamentalists? Well, simply put, Fundamentalists are known for their own negativity, snobby attitudes, ignorance of historic Christianity, and air of superiority, which I have witnessed firsthand growing up in Fundamentalist churches. So, I guess Fundamentalists get what they ask for in that regard - But what gets me is when people blast Fundamentalists for "ignorance", yet in the same breath pronounce ignorant condemnations upon the Fundamentalist camp. Where's the justice?

Please understand that I certainly can sympathize with those who have been hurt or at least negatively affected by legalism within some Fundamentalist circles. Legalism and "second", "third", and "fourth degree separation" are certainly problems that are contrary to Holy Scripture. I was once a "Fightin' Fundamentalist" who was arrogant, pushy, judgemental, anti-Catholic, and hostile toward anything and everything that was not "Fundamentalist" in nature. Praise God I'm past all that. But, I am a member of a Fundamentalist church back home in New Jersey - a church I love and am very happy in - and I would still surely consider myself to be a Fundamentalist based on the 10 aforementioned affirmations.

In the meantime, as we should with all issues, let us approach Christian Fundamentalism with an honest heart and an open mind. - Throwing the term around without understanding what it entails and without understanding that it is an endearing term to some Christians is certainly something we should shy away from.

Photo courtesy of the Boston Public Library.

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Geneva...

"I ask the man who dares to say that Calvinism is a licentious religion, what he thinks of the character of Augustine, or Calvin, or Whitefield, who in successive ages were the great exponents of the system of grace; or what will he say of the Puritans, whose works are full of them? Had a man been an Arminian in those days, he would have been accounted the vilest heretic breathing, but now we are looked upon as the heretics, and they as the orthodox." - Rev. Charles H. Spurgeon

These words of Rev. Spurgeon have haunted me the past few weeks as I've looked at the situation within modern-day Evangelical Protestantism. There is a new target...a new scapegoat...a new group of people to blame for whatever problem the church is facing - whether it be evangelism, church growth, number of people getting baptized, etc. No, it's not Hislopesque Anti-Catholicism, although that certainly still is a problem. The new "anti" that is sweeping Evangelical Christianity is Anti-Calvinism...and it really hits home to many of us, especially for a young Calvinist such as myself. In recent days, Calvinism is being looked upon as a heretical, dangerous system of theology by many within Evangelical Protestantism.

Now, Calvinists unfortunately have the reputation for being harsh, rude, and tactless when it comes to dealing with doctrinal issues....and I sincerely apologize to all my non-Reformed brethren for that. But, I'm not the kind of person that makes a big deal about Calvinism. I don't push it on people, I don't make it a point of conversation, and I don't sit around arguing about it for hours on end. It's just something that I see clearly taught in Holy Scripture, so, I accept it, teach it, and preach it. Simple as that.

Though this anti-Calvinistic mentality sadly seems to be spreading beyond denominational lines, its concentration seems mainly to be within the Baptist community. Without mentioning names, there are many leaders within the Southern Baptist Convention who are openly bashing Calvinism, calling it such names as "a virus" and "a hindrance to evangelism" - both from their pulpits and during the national convention - seemingly attempting to provoke the Calvinistic Founders Movement of the SBC into a war of words. Hyped-up warnings are coming from SBC pulpits, with preachers telling their congregations to beware - because Calvinists are trying to "hijack the convention", as if Calvinists were sly serpents trying to privily bring a false gospel into the church. To make things worse, Dave Hunt's recent book "What Love is This?" has provided non-Reformed Evangelicals with ammunition against Calvinism, and books of that sort are fueling the fire in this dilemma.

Now, you may be asking, "What does this horrible news have to do with 'A Funny Thing Happened on the way to Geneva'?" Well, this is the funny part...though many non-Reformed moderate and conservative Evangelicals seem to be accepting a harsh anti-Calvinistic mindset, hardline Fundamentalists (who are usually characterized as the divisive party within Protestantism) are doing just the opposite. For example: David Cloud, the controversial author, preacher, and webmaster of Way of Life Literature seems to be among the Fundamentalists who have somewhat of an "ecumenical/respectful/informed understanding" of Calvinism (though Cloud and his fellow Fundamentalists would abhor the term ecumenical). Though Cloud strongly disagrees with Calvinistic theology, and clearly states that in many articles on his site, his attitudes toward Calvinists seems much different than that of the "anti-Calvinists" within the Evangelical camp. Cloud says in his article "Calvinism - Who is the Enemy?",

"It is important to understand that there is a great variety of doctrine and practice among Calvinists, and by no means do I consider a man to be an enemy of the truth just because he accepts some of the Calvinist theology....There are soul winning Calvinists, Calvinists with great evangelistic and missionary zeal...I have had the privilege of knowing, and communicating at a distance with, many godly soul winning Calvinists. Though I am in strong disagreement with such men on the subject of Calvinist theology, I do not consider them enemies."


Another interesting case of this Fundamentalist tolerance of Calvinism is the close friendship of the leaders of Bob Jones University, a Fundamentalist college, and Dr. Ian Paisley, the moderator of the Free Presbyterian Church. Pictured above is Dr. Paisley holding the hand of Mrs. Bob Jones Sr. at the dedication ceremony of a BJU seminary building dedicated to Bob Jones Sr. It's interesting to see Fundamentalists such as Paisley and the Jones family finding common ground among their differences as brethren in the Lord. Yes...thats the funny part...Fundamentalists are even finding common ground and are exercising love and charity regarding this whole "Calvinism issue", yet Evangelicals seem to be taking a much different...much less scriptural approach...

Romans 15:5-6 - May the God who gives endurance and encouragement give you a spirit of unity among yourselves as you follow Christ Jesus, so that with one heart and mouth you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

It's time for some biblical ecumenism among non-Reformed and Reformed Evangelicals...let's get to work!

Photos courtesy of Google Images and IanPaisley.org

The Journey

Lately, as most of my friends know, I've been on somewhat of a "theological journey". Reading the church fathers, studying the scriptures, and participating in dialogue with Christians from sundry orthodox traditions and communities has allowed me to come to a fuller, more complete understanding of Christianity. As I've waded through the plethora of Christian history and theology...(and I have barely scratched the surface)...I've realized the absolute supremacy and centrality of the Lord Jesus Christ in all things. Wherever this "journey" of sorts has taken me, the Lord Jesus Christ has guided me and carried me each step of the way. Of course, that has been true of my entire Christian life, but these past few months have magnified Christ's guiding presence and centrality even more...

Hebrews 12:2a - Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith...

Something I've come to terms with is realizing that the Jesus that St. Thomas Aquinas wrote about and worshipped is the same Jesus that Charles Spurgeon preached and worshipped. A much harder pill for me to swallow was realizing that the Jesus that Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics worship is the same Jesus that 0rthodox Evangelical Protestants like myself worship. Though we certainly have our differences, and should not waver or compromise unless proven by Holy Scripture, we indeed have common ground...

Galatians 3:26-27 - You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.

So, wherever I end up...whether I remain a Baptist, or enter another Christian denomination...I will heed the words of the old hymn,

It is not mine to question the judgment of my Lord,
It is but mine to follow the leadings of His Word;
But if to go or stay, or whether here or there,
I’ll be, with my Savior, content anywhere!

If Jesus goes with me, I’ll go anywhere!
’Tis Heaven to me, where’er I may be, if He is there!
I count it a privilege here, His cross to bear,
If Jesus goes with me, I’ll go anywhere!

If you would, please keep me in prayer, and be diligent to spread the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ!

Here we go!...

Well, here it is...I finally started my blog I'm really excited to join the world of blogging, as it seems to be an effective tool to connect with likeminded people, spread the truth of the gospel, and, most importantly, to vent! So, here we go...visit often!