“The Bible is our sole authority for faith and practice.” I bet you have never heard that line before. Oh wait, if you are Baptist, you probably have.
Sadly, while many affirm this in principle, in practice they deny it. Tradition or culture often dictate a particular application of Bible principle. In the end, this application becomes Bible teaching and dogma. Alcohol, movies, pants on women, specific styles of music, specific translations of the Bible — the list of topics on which Scripture is “steered by tradition” could go on and on.
To compound this, doctrinal positions, where the Bible seems to allow for competing yet Biblically faithful interpretations, again morph into “its just plain Bible”. So if one doesn’t agree with a pre-trib rapture position, for example, he is rejecting the Bible; yet the facts of the matter stand differently. The one who denies a pre-trib rapture, only denies it on the basis of another Biblical position with various strong proof texts of its own. Of course only one end-times doctrine can be absolutely correct, but is it a sin to be wrong? And are we to be as dogmatic of our correctness on lesser points such as eschatology, as with major points like the Trinity and the Gospel?
All this comes from thinking about a fascinating look at church creeds by the always thought-provoking Carl Trueman. In an article called “A Good Creed Seldom Goes Unpunished” from the March 2007 issue of Reformation 21, Carl has the following insights into the “Bible only, we don’t need creeds” view.
On the issue of creeds, the evangelical world often seems absolutely divided into two broad camps: There are those who are so passionately committed to a particularly narrow view of scripture’s sufficiency that they not only deny the need for creeds and confessions but regard them as actually wrong, an illegitimate attempt to supplement scripture or to narrow the Christian faith in doctrinal or cultural ways beyond the limits set by scripture itself. Then there are those whose view of creeds and confessions is so high that any other theological statement, and sometimes even the Bible itself, seems to be of secondary importance. Neither group, I believe, really does the creeds justice.
I am very suspicious of both approaches. While I share the concern of the first group to safeguard the uniqueness of scripture and to avoid imposing my own cultural preferences and tastes on someone else under the guise of gospel truth, I have a sneaking suspicion that the cry of `No creed but the Bible!’ has often meant rather `I have my creed, but I’m not going to tell you what it is so that you can’t know what it is and thus cannot criticize it or me for holding it.’ Such is often the case with those evangelicals who reject creeds but have very definite views on the legitimacy of the consumption of alcohol and the nature of the end-times, for example. In practice, they effectively allow for no hypothetical distinction between what the Bible says and their own, or their church’s, interpretation of the same. Thus, they render themselves immune to any criticism. Further, as soon as they use words such as `Trinity’ or even consult a commentary, they reveal that what they say about their relationship to tradition and what they actually do in practice with tradition are in conflict. (HT: The Journeymen)
As I have stated above, I think Trueman hits the nail on the head with this issue. (Be sure to read the entire article.) We need to be careful to recognize our tendency to bring culture, and preconceptions to the Biblical text. Let us be silent where Scripture is silent, and cautious when the issues are truly complex. Let’s respect God’s Word and not presume to speak for It.
Thanks for the link brother. Challies posted an relevant post answering the question, Is Error In Doctrine Always A Sin? a few months ago.
Go Huckabee!
Hank,
Thanks for posting that link. That is an excellent discussion of this particular question. I think the teaching of Rom. 14 backs up what Challies affirms.
Blessings in Christ,
Bob
“Is it a sin to be wrong?” Well put. Here in Japan I was attending a Bible Baptist Fellowship church. Since the Christian population is less than 1%, churches are usually small, but this one was exceptionally small. One day I asked if I could invite a creationist speaker, and the pastor replied, “What denomination is he?” I thought to myself, “What difference does that make? He’s only going to be talking about creation.” It just so happens, though, that the speaker would have been a Baptist. So I told him the speaker was a Baptist, and he said, “BBF?” So I said, “Um, no, but…” To which he replied, “We can’t have speakers who are not of the same flock.” I couldn’t believe it. How can there be more than one “flock” when there’s only one Shepherd? I now attend a non-denominational church that even welcomes (gasp!) Catholics.
Excellent article. It reminds me of an outstanding chapter in Jack Deere’s book, Surprised by the Power of the Spirit. that chapter, named the Myth of Biblical Objectivity or some such thing, used the analogy of a town with two seminaries, one Baptist and one Presbyterian, and how honest, sincere,, and well meaning seminary students, influenced by the teaching of their particular church, saw the plain and undeniable teaching of the Bible on eschatology in completely different ways!
Alas, I’ve misplaced my copy of that book, or I could have done a better job in writing about it.
Casey,
Appreciate the comments. I would be leery of welcoming Catholics, however, as the Bible places such a high priority on the Gospel! Catholics have at the very least muddled the teaching of the Gospel, and the Reformation affirmed Catholics deny it. I think cooperating with them for some social issues is okay to an extent, however.
I do agree, that such non-budging churches like the one you were going to, can often encourage a shift to an opposite extreme where absolutely anything goes. That being said, I would need to know more about your church before “writing it off”. It sounds like there may be much good in that church you’re in.
Anyways, I always love interacting with commenters here.
Blessings in Christ,
Bob
Greg,
Seems that I remember something along those lines from that book too.
Thanks for the input,
Blessings from the cross,
Bob
In May 2005, I authored Alienated Planet Earth and the End that Will be Coming to Our World. It is available on-line from Trafford Publishing: trafford.com/04-2823
Despite, quoting Jesus and His apostle Paul after thoroughly researching the Bible, you’d be amazed the number of people who either have NO READING COMPREHENSION or who simply without merit are in IGNORANCE, denying that the Rapture prophecy is taught by Jesus Himself from the early inception of Christianity and clarified in the Epistles of Paul as a real Christian doctrine.
This is absolutely FLABBERGASTING when one considers that the alternative is being LEFT-BEHIND with the antichrist in the Tribulation and the Great Tribulation which ever looms on the horizon some prophetic day. It is thoroughly exasperating to be referred to and called a heretic and to have to repeat and point-out the Messiah’s own words in in HIS GOSPEL of Matthew, Chapter 24 verses 40 and 41 and in His gospel of Luke, Chapter 17 verses 34, 35 and 36. In addition to Christ’s Mount Olivet gospels, great clarification by Paul of the rapture event in His first epistles to the early Christian churches in Corinth and in Thessalonia are also provided. Check out: 1 Corinthians, Chapter 15 verses 51 through 57 and 1 Thessalonians, Chapter 4, verses 13-through 18.
The problem is how much of a Berean an individual is attempting to become a sanctified Christian. Do they search the scriptures daily to RIGHTLY divide the Word of Truth? Most people are just too LAZY and biased to perform diligent biblical research before shooting-off their mouth with their superficial ignorance and mistruths. Rather than to study and prepare themselves for the Rapture prophecy so that they and their loved ones will not be stunned or surprised when the historic RAPTURE event actually takes place, there are those people who despite being shown the Bible’s word will remain in adamant defiance that the Rapture is an early Christian doctrine taught by Jesus. In fact, they continue to preach THEIR OWN gospel according to their own aberrant and unresearched examination of the Holy Scriptures rather than to listen especially to EXACTLY what Jesus taught Himself.
Nothing, you speak or point-out to such ignorant people will get them to re-examine their dumb and aberrant point of view. After all, having pointed out the truth of Christ’s gospel, you finally need to accept the verses of the Bible which teach in Galatians 1 verses 6 through 12 to let such people be accursed.
How can one justify the casting of the pearl of truth before swine. It will simply be tarmpled by them.
Thought that you would enjoy sharing my experience in trying to evangelize non-Christians and straightening-out aberrant, so-called Christians who think themselves wiser than their Messiah to teach others their false gospel about the RAPTURE DOCTRINE of the early Christian Church.
Thoroughly Exasperated While Sharing the Christian Faith,
Jonah Immanu,
Christian Eschatological Author
Hey Bob,
The church I’m attending doesn’t have an English website, but the doctrine is sound. When I say we welcome Catholics, I don’t mean we agree with their doctrines, I’m just saying everyone is welcome and will not be shown the door if they disagree with certain messages. I agree that Catholics have lost their way, but as far as salvation goes, I think they’re saved. After all, the only conditions for salvation are that we “confess with our mouths that Jesus is Lord and believe in our hearts that God raised him from the dead.”
Jonah,
I can’t say that I enjoyed what you shared at all. I don’t think it helps the message when you lose your cool, and essentially say that people who disagree with you on this one, non-essential point, are all going to hell. It doesn’t work that way.
For the record, I believe in the rapture. But if my understanding of the Bible is correct, it will be a pleasant surprise for those who don’t see it like I do. For God is going to rapture believers, whether they realize that or not. You are implying that one must believe in the rapture to be included in the rapture. And you have no scripture to verify that statement because there isn’t any.
To say that fellow believers think themselves wiser than Jesus is to denigrate a whole lot of people who are following Jesus the best they can. The fact is, they go to Jesus for truth- they just understand him differently than you do on this particular issue.
In one post, you’ve called believers in the Lord ignorant, dumb, swine, and cursed them all to hell according to Galatians chapter one.
I think you would do well to read Matthew 5:22, and all the cross references that go with it, then spend some time seeking the Lord about it. You’ve exposed your heart here before us, brother. And it isn’t pretty.
Greg,
I see you FEEL PRETTY! OH SO PRETTY!
Your right, I have exposed my heart in light of Galatians 1, verses 6-12, the Apostle Paul’s words in his epistle to the Galation church and in my defense I would like to quote it to you.
6 I marvel that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the the grace of Christ unto another gospel;
7 Which is not another(gospel); but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that you have received, let him be accursed.
10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
11 But I certify you brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Greg, I sense that you speak very eloquently as a man pleaser and what, if anything, do men give you in exchange for your eloquent statements that are inconsistent with God’s Word? Your not too pretty yourself, even though you think you are such a great man-pleaser with your soothing-of-men’s messages. Examine YOURSELF in the light of God’s Word. Take the BEAM out of your own eye, before pointing out the speck in a brother’s eye who is faithfully preaching and teaching the gospel of Jesus Christ to whomsoever will have faith to believe His gospel.
Anyway, true believers don’t have to act PRETTY. Truth be known, we live in the THOROUGHLY FALLEN WORLD which is NOT at all pretty while we await the Rapture prophecy and the Second Coming of Jesus following the bridal feas of the Lamb to establish God’s Kingdom on this earth under His righteous reign and rule. Keep that in mind. The Messiah’s job is far from finished, until He establishes His Millennial reign on Planet Earth and puts the antichrist, Satan and his demons in utter separation in outer darkness from the heavenly Kingdom which He will rule.
Jonah Immanu,
Christian Eschatological Author
Jonah,
I see it is your desire to argue. If you continue, you will be arguing with yourself, because I won’t reply in kind.
I would like to point out that you are adding a requirement to the gospel, that of holding a correct eschatological view added to faith in Christ in order to be saved. Thus, you are the among the very people to whom Paul referred in Galatians 1.
In the Galatians case, the heretics were adding obedience to the law of Moses. Paul went on to say in chapter 5:
4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.
5 For we through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness.
6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.
Not “faith working through love plus the correct view of eschatology.” Just faith working through love. If you add to that, you’ve been severed from grace, according to Paul.
Perhaps this isn’t what you’d expect a man-pleaser such as myself to tell you. I do promise to work on that.
Now I’m going to quit arguing on Bob’s blog. You can go on and argue all you want.
Casey,
You are correct that faith in Christ is alone the ground of our eternal salvation. However, Scripture makes clear that depending on other things, like personal works or familial or religious status/membership, in effect nullifies grace. Just as good works evidence the sincerity of our faith, doctrinal clarity on the essentials of salvation testifies to the reality of our faith.
Catholics would do well to ponder such strong texts like Gal. 5:2-4, and Gal. 1:8-9. This teaching coupled with express commands to disassociate from and not approve of those who teach false doctrine that is contrary to the gospel should make all true Christians pause before welcoming Catholics as fellow-believers.
Note: this is not to say that there are some, perhaps even many Catholics who have genuine faith in Jesus Christ and are actually saved by grace thru faith alone. Yet, such are believing in spite of, and in direct contradiction of, the express teachings of their church.
I’m all for welcoming Catholics into your pews so they might benefit from your teaching of Scripture. I’m all for trying to not needlessly offend them through special prejudices. However, we must speak the truth unashamedly, and safeguard that truth.
Thanks again for your interaction here, Casey. I just want to make my position with respect to Catholics, clear.
Blessings from the Cross of the Sole Redeemer Jesus Christ,
Bob Hayton
Jonah,
I notice that you signed your first post here, “Thoroughly Exasperated While Sharing the Christian Faith”. I can empathize with exasperation, let me tell you! I have been exasperated many times when sharing my faith to unbelievers, and also when sharing my particular doctrinal positions and personal standards to fellow believers.
What troubles me, is that you seem to equate “sharing the Christian Faith” with sharing a particular rapture doctrine. This is what prompted Greg to contradict your posts. You seem to imply that those who do not agree with your rapture position (I assume you hold to a pre-tribulational rapture position), are advocating another gospel and may not be saved.
This rapture/end-times theology discussion is one which I would claim 2 Christians can disagree on and yet both be upholding and respecting the Bible. This discussion serves to illustrate the point I tried to make in this post. Some people claim to only allow the Bible to guide them, but then use such a stand as a club to beat people over the head with. Their particular view is by no means extremely clear from an honest evaluation of Scripture, yet they claim it is clear, and that disagreeing with their view is disagreeing with Scripture.
To make any headway here, I must discuss eschatology here. Let me propose that some who obstinately refuse to bow to your rapture doctrine, refuse because of their respect for what they believe the Bible is teaching. Consider some of the following points:
1) Why do we assume that the rapture takes us to heaven? 1 Thess. 4 declares we are “caught up” to meet the Lord “in the air”. Air only works on earth, there is no air in space.
2) The word for “meeting” in 1 Thess. 4:17 (apantesin) appears in 2 other places in the New Testament: Matt. 25:6 and Acts 28:15. Quoting from John Piper on this point now: “In both places it refers to a meeting in which people go out to meet a dignitary and then accompany him in to the place from which they came out. One of these, Matthew 25:6, is even a parable of the second coming and so a strong argument that this is the sense of the meeting here in 1 Thess. 4:17-that we rise to meet the Lord in the air and then welcome him to earth as king.” See John Piper’s brief paper on the millennium and rapture.
3) In Matt. 24:31, Jesus certainly seems to be describing a rapture. He says “And he will send forth his angels with a great trumpet, and they will gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other. (NASB)” Yet this is said to take place “immediately after the tribulation of those days” (vs. 29). Is this a second rapture? Or is Jesus referring to a post-tribulational rapture that happens in the same time as Jesus’ triumphant return when he defeats his enemies once for all?
4) Further, 2 Thess. 1:5-10 teaches that God will “grant relief” to believers “when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God…they will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction…when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at among all who have believed…” So those of us who are suffering can expect relief to be brought when Christ returns to destroy the wicked, NOT when Christ snatches us out of the suffering first (7 years before he destroys the wicked). The same event that brings relief, brings judgment on the wicked. The pre-trib rapture view holds that our relief is in being snatched away. See Vern Poythress’ paper on this passage and its implications on the millennial debate.
5) Also, the New Testament never implies that there is a two-stage return of Christ, or that there are two “parousias” of Christ. In fact what the New Testament teaches about the parousia seems to rule out the position that a literal millennium on this physical earth is to be expected, since when the parousia happens death is abolished and sin is destroyed. See Sam Storms’ helpful paper along these lines. (Also see his treatment of Rev. 20:1-15 part 1, part 2 & part 3).
I could go on, but the papers I link to above should be sufficient to prove that there are valid and convincing reasons to come to a different conclusion on the rapture issue and yet remain faithful to Scripture.
So I do not agree with your contentions. I do wish God’s best for you. You are welcome to comment here and respond. I would prefer that you try to keep any debate here as charitable as possible.
Thanks, and God bless,
Bob Hayton
Hi Bob,
I agree. The Catholic church has some very problematic doctrines. I certainly wouldn’t add any Catholic churches to a list of churches I was giving to someone who asked about churches in the area.
I should have explained myself better. My main point is that Japan is less than 1% Christian, and for a protestant church to refuse to have fellowship with other protestant churches is detrimental to the sharing of the gospel. The church I had been attending had no other members besides the pastor, his family and mine. Another Baptist church in the area had more than 30 and was still growing, even though they started at the same time. The other pastor desired to work together, but my pastor refused.
My church back home in the States was also a Baptist church (Southern Baptist). We had a sister church that was Presbyterian. We had special events that we worked together on, and sometimes the pastors would even swap congregations. Of course, the Baptist pastor didn’t tell the Presbyterian congregation they had to be fully immersed in order to have a true baptism, and the Presbyterian pastor didn’t tell the Baptist congregation that communion had to be served with fermented wine.
Basically, I think we should focus on the things we share in common. Denominations serve a good purpose in keeping the peace and allowing people to worship with others that share the same interpretations, but they can also be detrimental when taken to the extreme (as with the Boston Church of Christ, a.k.a. the International Church of Christ). Like you mentioned, it is not a sin to be wrong.
Thanks for commenting again, Casey. I understand a lot better now.
I am all for inter-denominational cooperation, and I do feel such unity speaks well of Christ. Certainly there must be agreement in the gospel, and we can agree to disagree on some non-essential matters. Cooperation of a similar kind with Catholics, however, is what I was concerned about.
I understand the difficulties inherent with Japan. I have a good friend who is in Japan (can’t remember the city right now). He comments here occasionally.
Hope you don’t mind the back and forth here. I pray God’s blessings on your church there. And I am pained over hearing how isolationist the other church was. That seems to be somewhat common on the mission field.
Blessings from the cross, brother,
Bob
Reading Tim Challies book on Discernment is of the greatest help in these areas of what to accept and what to draw a hard line in the sand over!!