One of the Dangers of ''Bible Only'' Interpretations

 

One of the dangers of modern Christianity, is the tendency of many well meaning Christians throughout the world to interpret the Bible with no knowledge of Hebrew, Greek, Judaism, or Early Christianity. This is demonstrated by the dangers that stem from those professing adherence to Sola Scriptura. 

Oneness Pentecostals claim to hold to Sola Scriptura. They also deny the Trinity, claiming that it is a tradition of man. While many Protestants would say that their view of Scripture is wrong, they would say the same of Protestants. Which side is right? It’s not so easy for only one side to quote a single Bible verse and expect the other side to agree. 

Calvinists and Arminians would both say that they hold to Sola Scriptura? Which of them is right? 

Paedobaptists and Credobaptists both say their own view is alone taught in scripture. Which view of baptism is right? 

Church of Christ would claim that the New Testament teaches Baptismal Reformation, though many Baptists would agree. Both dogmatically claim that their view is the Biblical one. 

Some Evangelicals would say that Catholics preach the gospel, though others were not. Some Evangelicals would say that belief in Sola fide is necessary for salvation, though others would not. 

Likewise, some Protestants would say that women can be ordained, though others would not. How can we know what is true? It is convenient for one sect of Christianity to claim that they are right while all else is wrong. 

Perhaps even worse still, later cults in history, such as Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesss, while appealing to other sources outside of Scripture, would also claim that their views are backed by the Scriptures. Like Evangelicals, their ''churches'' cannot be traced back to the Apostles, which leaves all of these groups to dispute the meaning of certain passages in Scripture. 

One of the dangers of “Bible only” theology is that various denominations and sects of Christianity (or false Christianity) all claim that their view of Scripture is right while all else is wrong. This is the same way that liberals interpret the Constitution—by asserting that the great American legal document can be interpreted with no reference to the people who lived at the time of its composition. And those who say that the Holy Spirit will enlighten them rest on the assumption that the Holy Spirit will somehow only enlighten them and no one else. 

Martin Luther, of course, did not have a “Bible-only” view. He frequently referred to church fathers. His view of Sola Scriptura was very different than today’s Pentecostals, Baptists, or Presbyterians. To Luther, only Scripture was guaranteed infallibility, which is where he would differ from Rome and Constantinople, though Luther embraced many Christian practices such as the rosary and infant baptism not explicitly found in Scripture. Luther actually had more in common with Latin-Rite Catholics and Byzantine-rite Orthodox than he does with today's Baptists. 

Then you have John Calvin. Calvin had a more rigorous view of Sola Scriptura. He rejected Christians even using hymns, as he believed Christian’s should only sing the Psalms. In this way, he too was different from many current Evangelicals. Holding to the Regulative Principles of Worship, Calvin saw even hymns as contrary to Scripture. 

But neither Luther nor Calvin were responding to Eastern Christianity. In fact, many of the abuses that they saw in Rome, were just that, abuses. Over time, Roman Catholicism has added unscriptural teachings into mainstream Western Christianity, which had no roots in ancient Christianity. Thus, Luther and Calvin did not have Eastern Orthodoxy in mind. Contemporary Evangelicals, as many of them practice Sunday school, quarterly communion, and sing Christian songs not found in Scripture.  

Now, returning to Oneness Pentecostals, as strange as it may be, even those who deny the Trinity claim that Scripture backs their view. This is not new. 

How do we determine if a view is orthodox? By appealing to what the church has always taught. Otherwise, there is no assurance of what is the right interpretation and what is not—-as proven by the thousands of denominations that continue to break from one another, as they all insist that their view is the Biblical one. 

When we turn to church history, we actually see the claims of ''Bible only'' are, in many regards, similar to the heretics of the ancient church. Recently, I learned from the book Eastern Orthodox Theology: A Contemporary Reader, edited by Daniel B. Clendenn, that during the Trinitarian disputes of the fourth century, it was the Arian heretics who primarily appealed to Scripture in defense of their view that the Trinity had no backing from the Bible. On the other hand, Athanasius of Alexandria, who certainly knew the Scriptures, referred to the authority of the universal church as its orthodoxy in holding to the Trinity. Indeed, the methods of interpretation of the Arians run parallel to many of today's Baptists, while Athanasius's view is far closer to contemporary Eastern Orthodoxy. 

Part of the dilemma for many Evangelicals is when they hear tradition, they immediately respect the papacy, the rosary, and various aspects of Roman Catholic doctrines and practices. But papal infallibility, purgatory, indulgences, and some of the Marian dogmas have never been confirmed by the church universal, but only by the pope and his hierarchy. For Eastern Christians and many Anglicans, the church universal, however, is beyond the teachings of one bishop but represents the church as a whole. For the most part, all seven Ecumenical councils from Niceae I (fourth century) to Nieae II (eighth century) were confirmed by bishops from both East and West. 

For many centuries, Protestant Christians of Northern Europe had essentially no contact with Orthodox Christians. Likewise, because many Orthodox books wouldn't have been written in English at this time, many British Christians remained ignorant of Orthodox Christianity. Thus, most Protestants saw ''church traditions'' only those of Rome, which in themselves were often problematic and had no origins in ancient Christianity, whether in the Scriptures or outside of them. In recent years, though, because of Greek and Russian immigration to the West, many Western Christians have become acquainted with Eastern Orthodoxy for the first time in a thousand years (or more). Today, about 70-80 percent of American Orthodox priests were not raised in Eastern Orthodoxy. As one of the most growing traditions of Christianity in North America, many Evangelicals have converted to Orthodox Christianity. Why? Because, unlike their ancestors, who in the 1500s had little contact with the East, modern Evangelical Christians now see in Eastern Christianity the ancient origins of the entire Christian faith. And more Evangelicals are now seeing the authority of the church as universal and cannot be limited to one bishop (the pope) or one break-away denomination (the various Protestant and Evangelical sects). Instead, the church universal is as it was in Acts 15. when James of Jerusalem and Peter the Apostle, along with other elders and apostles, spoke for the church as a whole. Nowhere in Scripture, on the other hand, do we see the apostles all individually appealing to Scripture without the intervention of the entire church. 

Indeed, In 2 Peter 1: 20, Peter warns believers not to have their own view of Scripture. Tragically, many Baptists do. For many Baptists, not only was the Roman Catholic Church wrong, but so was the church universal until the early modern age. In rejecting infant baptism, icons, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and weekly communion, the Baptists have began their own traditions apart from those of the universal church. 

Furthermore, the traditions of the church need to be understood. In 2 Thessalonians 2: 15, Paul instructed the church to hold onto traditions not described in Scripture. When we appeal to church history, we don't see the ancient fathers always agreeing with each other. Nevertheless, church councils, when recognizing the church as universal and not just a certain sect or region, represent the work of the Holy Spirit guiding the church from falling into error (Matthew 16, Acts 15). This has always been the view of Eastern Christianity, which holds that no single bishop is infallible or supreme over the rest. 

The Eastern Christian view is Biblical. Not only does God leave no room for one’s isolated interpretation of Scripture, but in the Council of Jerusalem, as recorded in Acts 15, the Apostles and church leaders rejected the Judaizers as the former upheld orthodoxy for the entire church. Indeed, the chapter never shows the Apostles claiming that Scripture is simply on their side. Rather, they understood that the universal church was on their side, as opposed to a small sect that dissented from the ones whom Christ gave the Keys of the Kingdom (Matthew 16-18). 

Nowhere in Scripture do we ever see any of the Apostles or Early Christians practice a ''Bible only'' view. Nowhere do we ever see anyone in the first-century church read Scripture according to their personal interaction? As a historical note, the New Testament letters were read to the churches as a whole, and as already referenced, the Council of Jerusalem defined orthodoxy in Acts 15 not simply by quoting a Bible verse or so but because it represented the universal understanding of the church. 

For the record, I am not supportive of those who never appeal to the authority of Scripture. In fact, I have spent this entire blog writing various posts according to Biblical teachings. Scripture is the inspired Word of God, which we should seek to love, preserve, and be guided by. The more a theologian can back his view with a strong appeal to Scripture, the more I am impressed with his work. In general, I have appealed far more to Scripture in these posts than most ever do to defend their theological beliefs. 

What I am saying, though, is that some teachings are not unscriptural and run contrary to the orthodoxy of the church. The doctrine of papal infallibility is a tradition of the Roman Church, though not of the church universal. The memorialist's view of the Baptist is a tradition within their own sects, though not of the church universal. The teachings of the seven ecumenical councils, however, along with what the church universal has always taught, represent orthodox Christianity. 

On the other hand, if one claims to hold Sola Scriptura, then one should hold to it as Luther understood it. Otherwise, they falsely claim to hold to the Five Solas of the Protestant Reformation. 

Finally, in rejecting the abuses of Rome, the Protestant reformers emphasized Sola Scriptura, though, by this, many of them meant much different than did later Protestant Christians. Generally, the reformers (especially the Lutherans) did not take major issues with Christianity in the first seven centuries, and all the reformers still took much from the Medievals who had followed the ancient church. Considering that Eastern Christianity was once uncommon in Europe during the Reformation, perhaps Evangelicals should open their minds to compare Eastern Christianity in light of Scripture.