Christus Scripturas

As a Layperson Reformed Theologian I have always affirmed Sola Scripturas, one of the Five Solas; which proclaims the doctrine of scripture as premise and maxim over the entire rule of life. The Scripture Alone, not the church, nor tradition, is the "only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy Him" (WCF Shorter Chatechism Q. 2)

Moreover, we believe that scripture is self affirming and authenticating. Yet while we admit this truth many of us who are Presuppositional Apologist find the exploration of evidence for a systematic proof somewhat contradictory. For as we all know the scripture itself starts it's defense of God simply as "In the Beginning" (Gen 1:1) or "In the beginning was the Word" John 1:1.

For us the question of scripture is simply presupposed, meaning that scripture and God are elements of Divine Truth that are self evident. For in truth there is nothing else to presuppose, now is there? So then we do not argue the proof of scripture, but we in fact affirm it by reduction of what all other sources cannot be, namely the sacred Word of God. So truly all other spiritual sources fall silent to the voice of scripture. They cannot begin to answer the questions of life, existence, sin, or bring meaning.

Gordon Clark for one " held that Scripture constitutes the 'axiom' of Christian thought. One might say that the presuppositionalist defuse the need for arguing the proof of scripture by scriptural proofs by sidestepping "proof" altogether. For while the Christian world view of "scripture" cannot be absolutely proven it can be tested and this is what Clark and others of this camp have continually prescribed.

Nevertheless, there is some merit in exploring how that scripture does affirm scripture. Likewise the evidential position of Christ in the role of bringing about scripture is of no small importance. Thus the evidential aspect should not be dismissed simply because it is evidence but must be upheld because it is the revelation of God. For we teach that scripture interprets scripture without apology. So then let us acknowledge that scripture does in fact give a path of authority from Christ himself that should be shared with both believers and non-believers alike. Only the Holy Spirit knows the exact worth of this to the non-believer but it should at least not be lost on us, and the affirmation of Sola Scriptura.

Truly the following verse should be no stranger to us.

Eph. 1: 9 making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ 10 as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.

The whole of Christian doctrine is based upon the premise that at the appointed time God sent His Son into the world and we hold that this was not arbitrary time but one of specific importance and emphasis by God. Other verses come to mind such as John 1:1-18 where the Word is equated with the act of creation.

So at this appointed time Christ (the Word) interpreted the meaning of the scriptures; that they were fulfilled in Him.

Luke 24:27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.

Just prior to his Ascension He further communicated and empowered His disciples with this instruction.

Luke 24:44 Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, 47 and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things. 49 And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.”

His remarks that "the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled" is often understood to be an idiom or expression meant to imply the whole of Old Testament Scripture. Yet in literal language Jesus is at least mentioning the Mosaic Law and the Prophetic Books, with the addition of Psalms. This does not exclude the Writings as in the verses given there is also the mention of "and the rest of Scripture". From historic knowledge of the time it is quite clear what books where in the Hebrew Scriptures (TaHakH). (Some Related Links I found interesting: TaNakH, Jesus on the Law and Prophets)

Thereafter Christ commissions the apostles...

Matt 28:18-20 - 18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in [1] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

So herein we can gather that in Christ commission He gives authority to the apostles distinctly and arguable commissions the writing of the apostolic scriptures when He says "teaching", for hereafter the message of the apostles was described as "The Good News" , and the "Word of God". In Acts where we find that the author is Luke the Apostle (Reference to Theophilus in Acts 1:3 would seem to confirm this.) We find this sort of wording. Acts 11:1 accounts that the voice of the apostles is carrying the "Word of God".

1 Now the apostles and the brothers who were throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God.

Next we realize that we are left with just the writings of Paul to confirm credentials. Acts does not disappoint.

Acts 9:15 speaks of Paul...

But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel.

Likewise, Peter the apostle despite even being rebuked by the apostle Paul at one time affirms Paul as the "beloved brother Paul" in 2 Peter 3:5. If Paul were not believed to be an apostle would he be allowed to proclaim in in so many letters? (Rom . 1:1, 1 Cor. 1:1, 2. Cor. 1:1, Gal. 1:1, Eph. 1:1, Col. 1:1, 1 Tim. 1:1, 2. Tim. 1:1, Titus 1:1) Would not Peter object to him here rather than call him beloved if this were not so?

So what have we proven? In my opinion we have began to realize the consistency of the canon and it's connection with Christ. Moreover this hints of evidence of Christ centrality in the voice of scripture and history. So in the least we "prove" that Christ is the Lord of Scripture and shed light on His sovereign hand over His words.

Nevertheless, all evidence simply begs for yet another proof and I would not suggest that anyone would be converted by this means of evidence. For if one is looking for a reason not to believe one will find it. Scripture itself must in the ultimate evaluation be examined with test of existential and soteriological relevance, and therefore it's consistency of Truth. Yet we affirm loudly, Sola Scripture Christus!




While I see many many

Past Conversation Topics

Below are a number of links which display past topics of discussion. If you would like to make a change to any of these please let me know.

Adamic Covenant

Noahic Covenant

Covenant Theology

4-1-2008

The Free Will of Faith

4-15-2008

4-29-2008

4th Dimension

Trilogy

Family Influence

I have recently been wondering to what extent does family, especially the role of the father; play in one’s life as a child?

To David through Nathan, God speaks of David’s son Solomon...

2 Samuel 7:14-16 (NIV) I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men. But my love will never be taken away from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever.

An earthly father’s actions can change how the Lord will bless his posterity. To what extent can it also curse later generations? While the son does not inherit any of the father’s sins himself (Ezekiel 18:19-20), the influence of a father’s actions can and has affected the life of the many sons and daughters.

Speaking of Amaziah…

2Ki 14:3 (ESV) And he did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, yet not like David his father. He did in all things as Joash his father had done.

Speaking of Israel…

2Ki 17:14 (ESV) But they would not listen, but were stubborn, as their fathers had been, who did not believe in the LORD their God.

2Ki 17:41 (ESV) So these nations feared the LORD and also served their carved images. Their children did likewise, and their children's children--as their fathers did, so they do to this day.

To what extent does God give opportunities to the children of those He has decided to bless? While not altering the freedom of choice we each have, it seems that many people are predisposed to and taught to act in ways similar to how they are raised. This may cause some people to have barriers emotionally, psychologically, etc., to knowing God. To each of us God has made himself known (Romans 1:19-20), but is there an imbalance of what ways He does this and to what degree?

If so, how does this fit into the context of equality to all of Gods people? As Paul states in Romans 2:11 (NIV) “For God does not show favoritism.”

To what degree do other’s choices affect our own choices (as noted in the Scripture from 2 Kings above)? Is God completely sovereign only allowing each person to experience and know about him what he has determined (Acts 17:26-27)? My stance is that God in his omniscience has already planned for the ways He foreknew people would freely act, and knowing this He determined the ways to reveal Himself through humanity. I am interested to hear your responses.

Original Sin - The Forgotten Doctrine Part 1

Introduction
The day is coming and now is when we will have to explain what we mean when we say "Sin". Moreover, we have become illiterate of the term "Original Sin" in many Christian circles today. Without Sin or Original sin we are left with a watery "feel good" gospel full of warm platitudes but lacking anything that might give light unto salvation. For it is not for legalistic merit that we must uphold the meaning of sin, but for the sake of not deceiving ourselves of the truth of our own depravity that we must profess it. Yes, and we must recall the meaning of Christ death anew.
We will need to explore the origins of this doctrine to find our bearing.

Historical Roots - The Heritage of the Doctrine of Original Sin
'Original Sin' as a doctrine is derived from scripture but was historically formulated by Augustine. This was not so much of a generation of a new doctrine as it was a summarization of the Biblical teachings. Let me show some examples...

1. Man is Created Perfect - Scripture: Eccl 7:29 ; Augustine's teaching: "God the Author of all natures but not their defects, created man good..." City of God Book XIII, Ch3.
   
2. Adam sinned and fell from Perfection and Grace. Scripture: Gen. 3 ; Augustine's teaching: "As soon as our first parents had disobeyed God's commandment, they were immediately deprived of divine grace, and were ashamed and naked" City of God Book XIII, Ch. 3
3. The Sin of Adam Passed to All Men - Scripture: Rom 5:12 ; Augustine's teaching: "The fact that every individual springs forth from a condemned stock, and because Adam, must be first cankered and carnal, only later to become sound and spiritual by the process of rebirth in Christ" City of God Book XV Ch1
4. The Judgment of God is Upon All Men - Scriptures: Rom 5:18-19 ; Augustine's Teaching: "Undoubtedly, death is the penalty of all who come to birth on earth as descendants of the first man; nevertheless, if the penalty is paid in the name of justice and piety, it becomes a new birth in heaven." City of God Book XIII Ch 6

As we can see Augustine is simply expounding and formulating the consequences of the teaching of scripture.



Two questions are raised in the section above which may not be immediately evident. Firstly, what is the relation of Adam to mankind and secondly, how is sin passed upon all men?

There are two views to be considered and a hypothetical view as well. Please reply to these with your opinions for discussion.

Natural Imputation (Seminal/Hereditary)	Federal Imputation (Governmental/Priest-King)	Synthesis (Both)
The view that Adam is the father of us all and sin is imputed through biological means.	The view that Adam was our first governmental and spiritual representative (like Christ) and sin is imputed by law sanction.	This is a hypothetical view which would hold that Adam is both our Biological Father and Federal Head and therefore there is sin imputation both biological and Federal.

Welcome to Caffe Extra Bold

We are about to start blogging!