After seeing so many people confuse and muddle the Protestant doctrines of scripture, I started working on this diagram to show their relationships. What do you all think? Anything I missed? @GratefulDisciple You might appreciate it.
@curiousdannii Nice directed graph along with your invoking relevant WCF points (and paraphrasing them for this use). I would add the concept of "recognition" in "Canon", something I first heard you use (and later on, I think, from Gavin Ortlund). When attempting to answer Nigel's question (still in the works), I came across the latest version of Wikipedia's Prima Scriptura entry contrasting with Sola Scriptura which is quite insightful; as they are used now, they're not the same.
The intro of the article says "... Prima scriptura suggests that ways of knowing or understanding God and his will that do not originate from canonized scripture are perhaps helpful in interpreting that scripture ... " and among the groups that held it is Pentecostals.
This is quite illuminating to me as I know several strong charismatic friends who (through their practice) regard the Holy Spirit direction in their life (they cite Acts 19:21) as a source of authority at the same level of Scripture (!). Isn't that placing Experience at the same level as Scripture, but only subjecting experience when it is contrary to Scripture?
The problem is that Scripture doesn't spell out specific direction in someone's life, so people who practice it doesn't have opportunity for those kinds of Holy Spirit "direction" to be tested by Scripture, unless contrary to love, for example. I don't think practictioners of Sola Scriptura subject themselves that way to Holy Spirit by consulting HS on every matter. They tend to use Reason for discernment than (spiritual) Experience.
I agree that Anne's answer is chosen to be accepted, and I agree with your comment here that the Q is rather trivial, and the diagram shows how Assurance of Salvation is not directly linked by immediate concepts surrounding Sola Scriptura. Not sure whether it's useful to extend the graph to show the link to Assurance of Salvation.
@GratefulDisciple I'm still sceptical that there's really a meaningful difference. Or at least, "prima scriptura" is the better term for the Protestant doctrine. It's what we actually mean, and closer to the wording of WCF 1.10 etc.
Good point though, I'll add recognition of the canon to my diagram.
@GratefulDisciple I think that's the issue of the infallibility of the Spirit's witness, or more precisely, or fallible recognition and interpretation of the Spirit's acts in our life. There's a parallel problem with scripture: while scripture may be infallible, how can we know we are interpreting it correctly?
One difference is that being written, scripture is a definitive form available to all. When the Spirit communicates to people, whether verbally or not, it's just not available to others. Our doctrine of inspiration is not just how God guided and communicated to the prophets, but that the actual inscripturation process was inspired too.
When God spoke to a prophet like Isaiah then that was at the same level as when he speaks to people today. It's specifically the inscripturation process that raises this revelation to the infallible and authority of scripture.
The other aspect is that our task of interpretation is a collective project. Because we have the same texts, and the same Spirit, then we can collectively move towards good interpretations. This collective project can't really process modern spiritual revelations. And sadly, some people who claim to have received revelation would oppose it outright, instead saying their word is undeniable.
I wonder if I can fit that collective project of interpretation into the diagram somehow.
@GratefulDisciple Yeah, assurance of salvation is important, but pretty distinct from this cluster of doctrines.
@curiousdannii I often bring up the case study of my charismatic friend because it's very obvious that although we both started with Sola Scriptura, the ranking that we assign Tradition, Experience, and Reason are very different. Again, I prefer to start with observation of how it is practiced rather than on paper.
I start with the given of the verbal form of the Inscripturated Word, and the ambiguity in the langue then give a place for Tradition (like the creeds) to prefer certain meaning. To me this then gives a sphere of independent judgment using my Reason and insights from a few decades of life-experience of reflecting on the meaning of doctrines and Jesus's words. So for me it's a hierarchical: Scripture -> Tradition -> Reason + Experience.
@GratefulDisciple Yeah I think the Reformers would like that. We use tradition to guide us, to warn us if we're going somewhere absurd.
I think for Protestants sola scriptura means that in principle they are always open for any doctrine to be challenged. But if you're going against centuries or millennia of Biblical reflection, then you have to bring your absolute A game. The more diverging your interpretation, the stronger your arguments have to be.
But to my charismatic friend, she would NOT consult the common catholicity but instead use the 20th century Tradition of Pentecostal interpretation for "charismatic verses" such as saying that ALL "shall prophesy" (Acts 2:17), and would often let prophets who come into their congregation to pray over her and whatever "word of knowledge" they offer she would consider them potential words coming from the Holy Spirit Himself and accords them highest authority to her personal life!
So to her the hierarchy becomes: Scripture + Experience -> Tradition. No Reason. Only when what the prophet says counter to Scripture, then she would put Scripture at a higher level. The problem is that she would take interpret Mark 16:17-18 literally, expecting healing signs and driving demons as something normal that EVERY believer should do.
Not all Pentecostals are like that, but for those who are, they're really totally departed from the Protestant doctrine of scripture. I'm sure it must also have effects on their doctrines of salvation too.
Some say certain spiritual gifts are essential signs of salvation, so that's already one huge error.
@curiousdannii Yes, I'm aware of that. But how would Sola Scriptura be in use here? I agree that interpretation should be a collective project. Of course I trust WCF more than my friend's group's interpretation of Mark 16:17-18, but this choice is not spelled out by Sola Scriptura, which is equivalent to your problem here: "how can we know we are interpreting it correctly?"
@GratefulDisciple Well they'd need to be convinced of sola scriptura first. And it's kind of a hard doctrine to persuade people to.
Your friend may say she believes in SS, but in practice it really seems otherwise?
"and whatever "word of knowledge" they offer she would consider them potential words coming from the Holy Spirit Himself and accords them highest authority to her personal life!" When someone wants to believe this, I don't know if there's really anything we can do. People believe what they want to believe. I guess we can wait and if they turn out to be false prophecies then we can gently remind her of that. But many such words of knowledge are pretty vague...
@curiousdannii Over time my friend seems to moderate her position to regarding those gifts as less essential. But I still don't see how SS can help, since those spiritual "gifts" (by others or claimed to be her own gifts) cannot really be contradicted with scripture! It's like parallel authorities.
The other things would be to point again and again to the power and authority of scripture. God acts in his scripture. And it always comes back to focusing on the glory of Christ and his work for our salvation and life. Spiritual maturity always comes from the Gospel taking deeper root in our lives. We never move past it.
Another problem: their doctrine sets themselves up to create parallel authorities in their personal lives.
@curiousdannii And that's YET a third problem. They tend to define "glory of Christ" as manifest in miracles they experience, thus the "over-realized eschatology", a phrase you used recently but I also discovered earlier as the precise benchmark of their theology. Again, how does SS supposed to reject over-realized eschatology? Not to mention they tend to be quite disciplined as well, not lax as my Calvinist childhood church.
Roger Olson had a recent blog article about his childhood fundamentalistic church. My friend is quite zealous in evangelism and promoting Jesus (interpreted through the lens of charismatic and power of Jesus realized in her life) to almost everyone she meets. I don't have to mention their discipline in prayer.
It seems his childhood church and my friend's childhood church have similar culture.
@curiousdannii But what counts as "absurd"? What to say to someone who prefers to pray for miracles instead of going to a doctor because she considers it a cop-out or exhibiting lack of faith?
@GratefulDisciple For that specific example I think there are plenty of Biblical examples showing God working through ordinary means including human physicians.
@GratefulDisciple Paul keeping Luke around in general, then things like Jeremiah 8:22.. actually there aren't so many references.
Problem is when I read James 5:14-15, I just assume that medical professionals are also involved. But they would read it differently!
So rather than focusing on healing specifically, we need a more robust understanding of God's providence. Natural means are still the work of God. Occasionally God feeds the hungry through sending manna, but usually through sending rains.
Thus while God can and does heal miraculously, he usually heals through "natural" means.
Narrated Nafi:
Whenever Ibn `Umar was asked about marrying a Christian lady or a Jewess, he would say: "Allah has made it unlawful for the believers to marry ladies who ascribe partners in worship to Allah, and I do not know of a greater thing, as regards to ascribing partners in worship, etc. t...
This official Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints source asserts:
As the Bible was compiled, organized, translated, and transcribed, many errors entered the text. The existence of such errors becomes apparent when one considers the numerous and often conflicting translations of the Bible...
@Conrado The version I was familiar with is this one and I remember when I was a teenager that my church's pastor used another version of this. I guess that's why I'm predisposed to go to (Western) doctors in conjunction to prayer for my own healing BUT construed as an exercise of my dependence of God rather than my friend's hermeneutic, saying that one has to "break open" the door for miraculous healing citing:
4) And since the condition of John 14-16 is producing fruit, they are also zealous in sanctification teaching Christian perfection, citing John 15:12-17 for the linkage, 5) which they then tie another doctrine of listening for minute direction from the HS because as believer we should have recognize the shepherd's voice (John 10:27).
The problem (to me) is that sola scriptura seems insufficient to combat that type of charismatic hermeneutic. These kinds of issues led me to be a lot more sensitive to the kinds of presuppositions Christians bring to reading scripture.
@curiousdannii No argument from me.
@curiousdannii They would say that's not what the Bible teaches. After all the Bible is full of God and Jesus's doing miracles for those who fervently pray to depend on Him. So my challenge is how to fight that kind of hermeneutic.
The Upper Room
The Upper Room