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
No comments:
Post a Comment