The Church creeds of past centuries were designed to root out doctrinal error and confirm the cardinal doctrines of Christianity. This was a noble cause, however creeds have serious problems that need to be addressed. First century believers focused on the commands of Christ and resolved doctrinal error in a “one accord” council (Acts 15).
1. Christ’s commands are inspired, church creeds are not
This is an important factor. The commands of Christ which He received directly from His heavenly Father deal with all areas of faith and practice. Man’s creeds deal only with the doctrinal issues that the writers thought were important. As a result, some important truths are left out and truths of lesser importance are emphasized.
2. Christ’s commands are balanced, church creeds are not
For every Biblical truth there is a balancing truth. For example, Paul stated: “In me, that is in my flesh dwelleth no good thing” (Romans 7:18). But David stated: “I am fearfully and wonderfully made” (Psalm 139:14). We are not saved by works but “we were created in Christ Jesus unto good works” (Ephesians 2:8-10). We are to “cease from our labors.” Yet we are to “labor to enter into God’s rest” (Hebrews 4:10-11). Truth out of balance leads to doctrinal heresy!
3. Christ’s commands lead to unity, church creeds lead to division
The fervent prayer of Jesus was that all believers would “be one, as you Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be one in us that the world may believe that you have sent me” (John 17:21). When doctrines are removed from their moral settings, they become argumentative. For example, Christ’s return is to motivate us to purify ourselves (I John 3:3). Instead, creeds focus on when Christ will return and we argue over pretribulation vs. post tribulation, premillennial vs. postmillennial vs. amillennial! The same is true of communion. Rather than “examining ourselves” we argue over consubstantiation vs. transubstantiation vs. a memorial celebration.
4. Christ’s commands appeal to our heart, creeds appeal to our head
Thousands of churches recite the Apostles Creed every Sunday. “I believe in God the Father Almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth…” There are at least two major problems with this beginning: First, “You believe that there is one God; you do well: the devils also believe and tremble” (James 2:19). Second, there is NO mention of love in this entire creed! Jesus commanded, “You shall love the Lord your God…” (Matthew 21:37).
5. Christ’s commands are our message to the world, not creeds
When Jesus gave His great commission to His disciples He did not say “Go ye therefore and teach all nations church creeds.” Rather, He said “teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you” (Matthew 29:19-20).
Bill Gothard, Ph.D EmbassyUniversity.com
of the three one-page meditations of Bill you have published here, this one is the worst and most bizarre.
Bill cannot quote anyone or writings from “1st Century Christians” because there is nothing from the “1st Century Christians to support his claim that “1st Century Christians” only cared about commands of Christ and not doctrine. The Apostles Creed is called that because it is from the time of the Apostles, some of the earliest written copies of it come from 200’s in Rome. To claim that creeds cause divisions is so out there, is it just unbelievable. The Apostles and Nicene Creed have guided and defined what is orthodox Christian beliefs about triune God, about Christ, about the virgin birth, about the resurrection etc. People that claim we don’t need creeds, we just need Jesus or the Bible usually end up falling into error. Christianity Today published a recent survey of Evangelicals and it showed that an alarming high percentage of those that answered the survey were Arian in their views about Jesus, Bill obviously wants to throw out creeds because he has fallen into errors. The word creed comes from the Latin word Credo which means “I believe”. I am not sure what is in either the Apostle’s or Nicene Creed Bill doesn’t believe in.
Rich Mullins was a contemporary Christian musician. His is most famous for the song “Our God is an Awesome God”. He was raised as a Quaker which do not believe in creeds or even sacraments like baptism. He bounced around different Churches and became acquainted with the poetry of St. Francis of Assisi. He began to change where he took a vow of poverty and gave away most of his income from his music to others. One of the last songs he wrote is called Creed. The chorus line is this. “And i believe what I believe, is what makes me what I am, I did not make it, no it is making me. It is the very truth of God and not the invention of any man, I believe it, I believe.”
I honestly cannot read any more of these one-page meditations from Bill. He obviously has some deep heretical ideas which the above Creeds work against.
We concur with Bill that there NO human writings, no dogmas that are even in the same arena with the Word of God. It is interesting that you condemn the “Arian” perspective, not a Bible word, a set of doctrines from one sect of Christianity. I see problems with “Arian” and I see problems with “Calvin”, generally regarded as the opposite. I would not identify with either.
“Heresy” is generally “truth out of balance”. We climb on one pinnacle of light and build our world around it. Every schism with its creed falls short to some extent, either by out of balance principles, or omissions of things the Lord considers really important. It is our job to keep our eyes on Jesus, test every spirit to see whether it is approved of God.
1 Corinthians 11:19 “For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.”
Arianism was an ancient dispute about the begetting of Christ. That was settled at Nicaea.
Compared to that, disputes between John Calvin and Jacob Arminius were mere froth. They agreed more than disagreed. Both were Protestant reformers whose differences were debated at the Synod of Dort. Both Calvinists and Arminians affirm the Nicene Creed.
Are creeds defective because they are men’s creeds? Whose creeds would they be if not men’s? Only men can believe. Jesus commanded men to believe, so our creeds affirm that we have obeyed him.
Rob’s defense of our creeds is correct.
Is the Apostles’ Creed defective because it is silent about love? Talk is cheap. Why, the Bible itself rebukes excessive chatter about love! St. John commanded us to love “not in word, neither in tongue but in deed and in truth.” Christ himself commanded us to let our light so shine before men that they might see our good works. Shining a light of good works matters more than talking about love.
The purpose of a creed is to confess faith. Is our confession of faith real or phony? Again we find the answer in our Bibles. Jesus commanded us to shine a light of good works among men. St. James reminds us that authentic faith is made manifest by works of love.
Every evening during family prayer, I lead my family in reciting the Apostles’ Creed, using the style I once learned from visiting my local Presbyterian church. During Sunday service the pastor would ask from the pulpit, “Christian, what do you believe?” In response, we would recite the Apostles’ Creed in unison.
The creed was no rival to the truth we heard from the pulpit, but rather an affirmation of it. It was like saying amen to truthful words uttered in prayer or preaching. As a good wife complements her husband, so our creeds complement and affirm the truth we receive from God. As good response compliments good initiative, they are partners instead of rivals.
Do creeds promote unity or division? peace or sword? By design, they promote each. The ancient church councils produced the creeds partly for the purpose of sorting heresy from orthodoxy and wheat from tares. They unify sheep and alienate goats.
As for words of Christ vs. words of men, consider what the Lord said in the gospel according to Luke. After the parables of the lost sheep and lost coin, the Lord said that likewise, “there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.”
Is there joy among angels when we recite the creeds? Possibly, but joy is guaranteed when a sinner repents.
Heresy is beliefs or opinion contrary to orthodox (especially Christian) doctrine. It is not truth out of balance. I realize that is the definition Bill gave in the seminars but it is totally understandable inaccurate.
Arianism is not the opposite of Calvinism. Arianism is the idea that Jesus was created by God, not co-eternal or co-existing. Current Arianism is found in some parts of the world of Calvinism is the form of ESS which is very much debated by different Calvinists. ESS is the eternal submission of the son.
Bill has no authority to declare creeds that have been affirmed and used by Christians null and void and declaring them works of men.
There is no Biblical definition of “orthodox”. As you know much of what is called “orthodox” is considered heresy by evangelical Christians. So that definition is not helpful for most of us.
Why does not Bill have the authority to declaring them null, void, and works of men?
1 Corinthians 2:15-16 “But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. “For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.”
THAT sounds like a lot of authority.
Orthodox is the term which evolved to label “mere” or consensus Christianity. It is a safe and helpful term. Among Christian denominations, we agree more than we differ, so our beliefs are “orthodox.” Compare the Apostle’s Creed to any evangelical statement of faith or indeed the IBLP statement of faith and you won’t find any conflicts. All are orthodox and also works of men.
That is not authority, nor does Bill any of it. You cannot point to one thing in either Apostle’s or Nicene Creed that is “man made”. Creeds define what orthodox Christian beliefs and doctrine are. Those that want to throw them out do so because they have departed from: “I believe in God the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth and in Jesus Christ his only son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontus Pilate, crucified, died and was buried, he decended into hell, the third day he rose from the dead, he ascended into heaven and sits on the right hand of the Father where he will come again to judge the living and the dead. I believe in Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body and the life everlasting”.
Bill claims on his own web site named after him that the founding of our country started with Jesus and the Apostles. He made that claim. He has no evidence for that totally bizarre statement yet he can turn around and now state that creeds are man made, creeds that have been in use since the Apostle’s time. Bill seems to be unable to connect the dots in this and other statements he is making on his web site and in these one page zingers. I just saw his one page on Charles Spurgeon where he basically threw him under the bus for struggling with depression. So unbelievable. One man shows are a clear sign of serious problems. No balance here, he isn’t having other check his writings. He clearly isn’t connecting the dots.
Most evangelicals would be skeptical that the “creeds” were generated by the Apostles. Believing that the only inspired Word of God is found in the Bible.
What I quoted is most definitely “authority”. “Judges all things but is judged of no man”? “We have the Mind of Christ?” Strong and bold statements.
Of the ecumenical creeds, the Apostles’ Creed is the earliest known and most basic. Some traditions credit the apostles themselves with authorship. Here is the wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles%27_Creed
The Nicene Creed came later, to define common faith about Christ and the Holy Spirit.
The Bible is the word of God. The creeds express the faith response of men. Bible and creed are complements, not rivals.
May we have a link to the Spurgeon thing? Hopefully he found relief from depression.
Man-made things cut both ways. Some make us proud, but others make us cringe with shame.
As for proofreading, apparently Bill Gothard has Rob performing that valuable service right here! Why hire a proofreader when Rob donates her complimentary services?
I believe the moderator here will have to publish this next. If your wife is on Facebook, I think they have been published there in closed groups.
proof reading is not the same thing as proof texting scripture. proof texting of scripture is what the devil did in the temptations of Christ, which is quoting one line verses out of context to try and prove something or teach something that if one actually read the whole section the verse came out of, would not be saying or teaching that. In simple terms, proof texting scripture is misquoting verses, usually one line zingers to give support to something the whole of scripture does not say or teach.
Your responses to me are surprising. First of all, there isn’t an agreement, even among Evangelicals on what is an Evangelical. It has become a catch all phrase to generally mean a more conservative Protestant. Also, there are many Evangelicals in Churches that use either the Apostles or Nicene Creed, so to make a blanket statement that Evangelicals don’t believe in either of these two ancient creeds is false. Now only churches that are in Anabaptist groups and their split offs usually state that “they have no creed but Jesus” do have in replacement as David K pointed out, statements of faith, which generally closely resemble either Apostles or Nicene Creed. IBLP has a statement of faith as David pointed out. And I am sure it was crafted while Bill was still there.
You also did not nor actually cannot point out anything in either creed what is either man made or unbiblical with them. You did not because you cannot. That is why I listed the Apostles Creed for you. I do not believe that there is anything in that you either don’t believe yourself or don’t disagree with. In 350 AD, St. Cyril of Jerusalem wrote this about creeds:
“In learning and professing the faith, you must accept and retain only the Church’s present tradition, confirmed as it is by THE SCRIPTURES. Although not everyone is able to read the Scriptures, some because they have never learned to read, others because their daily activities keep them from such study, still so that their souls will not be lost through ignorance, we have gathered together the whole of the faith in a few concise articles. …. so, for the present to content to listen to the simple words of the creed and to memorize them; at some suitable time, you can FIND PROOF OF EACH ARTCILE IN THE SCRIPTURES. This summary of the faith was not composed at MAN’S WHIM; the most important sections were chosen from the whole Scripture to constitute and complete a comprehensive statement of the faith. Just as the mustard seed contains in a small grain many branches, so this brief statement of faith in its heart, as it were, ALL THE RELIGIOUS TRUTH TO BE FOUND IN OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT ALIKE.” (Emphasis added).
I really don’t know any Evangelical no matter how you define it or where they go to Church able to disagree with anything in either the Apostle or Nicene Creed. You did not produce any evidence to the contrary. There are a number of articles in Evangelical places like Christianity Today and The Gospel Coalition that have more than one article talking about the importance and value of these two creeds. In churches that claim to “have no creed”, you find in replacement, statements of faith to fill the void. This is not a winning argument for you.
I don’t think you are understanding the point Bill is making. No matter how eloquent and studied and with what righteous of intentions a creed or “statement of faith” may be created, it is ALWAYS inadequate. Such creeds are like two dimensional pictures of a three dimensional world – any “Fact” you seek to put your foot down on coming from such a creed, you will ultimately have to move it. Sort of like declaring, “No object can be in two places at once”, and “No object can affect another object faster than the speed of light” in physics, classical Newtonian physics. Quantum mechanics continues to turn all such “facts” on their ear.
So, similarly, only God’s inerrant Word is “complete” – and inerrant – doctrine. There is a reason that the Holy Spirit gave this list of blessed people:
Revelation 1:3 “Blessed is he that READETH, and they that HEAR the words of this prophecy, and KEEP those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.”
Notice what is missing? “Understand”. In order to generate a creed or statement of faith, you have to UNDERSTAND the full meaning of Scripture. Revelation is an extreme example of the fact that while we can READ and HEAR and KEEP – And Bill would add “Meditate”, another version of “keep” – Scripture, we can never fully understand it, no more than we can ever fully understand the Lord.
I have know idea how creeds are 2 dimensional in a 3 dimensional world. Not sure where that is coming from. Revelation 1:3 has nothing to do with creeds or is even bashing them.
I am trying to make the point . . . That ANYTHING that man comes up with is at best an approximation of the Word of God. Like a picture is an approximation of a 3D item.
Using this kind of bizarre deduction, then Bill’s teachings and ideas are also man made. Acts 15 records the first Church counsel in Jerusalem which made authoritative decisions and rulings. Authoritative Church Counsels since then also include Counsel of Nicaea which wrote the Nicene Creed and also includes in later Church Counsels what books belong in the Bible. Your reasoning here is not supported or found in scripture. Decisions from the first 7 Church counsels are considered authoritative even in many Protestant circles.
Again, what holds in many even “Protestant” circles caries little weight in the perspectives of many of those that support Bill. And your comment about Bill’s teachings and ideas not being “Scripture” (my way to say “man made”) is correct. Which is why he consistently is pointing us to God’s Word, to gain our strength and insights there, much like the Bereans who, refusing to take Paul’s word for it, “searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”
Exactly. Our creeds represent a Christian consensus (a best guess?) about the faith which God requires of man. We make no boast about the quality of our faith, we simply confess it. Our creeds begin with, “I believe,” like the man who said, “help thou my unbelief.” When we say our creed in faith, we are also petitioning for help, because our belief is so easily corrupted by traces of unbelief. The Bible warns us against sin which “so easily besets us.” Isn’t unbelief among our worst sins?
In the Bible Jesus is called, “finisher of our faith.” Mine needs finishing. How about yours?
The dimension analogy says to heed our limits. Because our mortal flesh we sees “through a glass darkly,” we should assume that our understanding has room for improvement.
During the recent years of virus scare, we learned that “settled science” was not quite settled. Dare we boast as though our theology were settled with no room for improvement? We believe our Bibles are settled. Our theology? not necessarily.
Maybe “your” theology isn’t settled, that seems to be obvious by your many statements here. Bouncing around between different churches teaching different things that you have admitted to yourself, no wonder. My “theology” is very settled.
Bill Gothard once taught a helpful meaning of “keep.” Of course we ought to obey God. That is the first and obvious meaning of “keeping” his commandments. Even so, obedience begins with another sense of “keep,” the way a sentry keeps his post under observation. He keeps it before his eyes. His first duty is vigilance. Similarly, we keep God’s word by holding it before us, front and center. Unless we begin there, how can we obey?
The cannon of Scripture was decided upon AFTER the Nicene Creed of 325. (Synod of Rome 386, Counsels of Hippo and Carthage respectively). The Bible does not state what books should or shouldn’t be in it. That was decided by Church counsels nearly 400 years after Jesus birth, death and resurrection. You cannot say that the Nicene creed is man made and secondary. And there was rather heated disagreements on what should be used in the NT. St. Clement’s letter ( mentioned in Phil. 4:3) to the Corinthians, Shepard of Hermas ( mentioned by St. Paul in Romans 16:14), St. Ignatius letters. the Didache were used as scripture in some parts of the early Church. John 2 & 3, Jude, II Peter, Revelations, Hebrews nearly didn’t make it in. History just doesn’t back up your ideas here. Nor do they back up Bill’s ideas. It is totally meaningless to say that the small band of Bill believers and supporters don’t consider Creeds and authoritative Church counsels.
Those eschewing Creeds and Counsels are in far greater numbers than just “Bill believers”. I am sure you know that. They make the same case: ANYTHING men come up with, including some famous “systematic theologies” is ultimately tainted . . . Two dimensional . . . Certainly not worthy of memorization and meditation like Scripture is.
There have been disagreements on the “Cannon” . . . That is correct. Declaring a book in or out does not make it so. The Holy Spirit makes it plain, the only authority that matters.
And how does the Holy Spirit make it plain? How? The Holy Spirit uses the authority of the Church. That is a meaningless statement. I just read an article on Christianity Today that the largest Protestant group is now non-denominational. That means anything goes. Anabaptists groups and all their finger and toes are really the only ones that eschew historic Church counsels and creeds. I once saw an interview with Paula White, Trump’s “pastor” and she stated that she was answering the charges of being heretical. She stated that she “believed in the Nicene Creed” which made her an “orthodox” Christian.
“The Holy Spirit uses the authority of the Church.”
Please back that up with Scripture. What I read:
1 Corinthians 2:15-16 “But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. 16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.”
St. Paul wrote in 1 Timothy 3:15 that “the pillar and bulwark of the truth is the Church”. Jesus in his final last supper discourse that the Holy Spirit would come and guide the apostles in all truth. You again are misquoting 1 Corinthians 2 which was St. Paul defending his teaching as being guided and founded by the Holy Spirit.
The church does indeed present and support the truth, but it is not the truth. Yes, it is the Holy Spirit that presents and guides – in the end He – and the words of Scripture – are the full embodiment of that truth. We can see that truth with our spiritual eyes, but we cannot ever fully capture it in writing, even if given the entire sky to write on with the ocean of ink to do so. When you want to create a replica of something, you go back to the original for reference, not someone else’s replica. Each of us, saved by grace, full of the Holy Spirit become an “image” of Christ, and of His truth. We encourage each other and we point the way for others, but we must never elevate each other – and our words and thoughts – to a place that only the infallible Word of God can occupy.
I really don’t have any thing more to say to you or this topic. One man nearly 1700 years after the fact, has no business to declare the Nicene creed, which was an authoritative summary of faith to be a work of man. Bill cannot point to anything in either the Apostles or Nicene creed that isn’t supported and founded in the Bible. Bill’s own teaching are a “work of man”. Your efforts in trying to reason this is not addressing what is wrong or off with either of these two creeds. the Bible records and supports Church counsels being authoritative and that includes these creeds as well as what is actually in the Bible. I will go with 1700 years instead of one man writing out of his own ideas 1700 years later. And yes, I realize that there are groups that claim they have “no creed” but actually get around this via so called statements of faith which is the world Bill is from and of. I really have nothing more to say. I think Jinger Vuolo said it best in her new video for her new book. She was stating that her book was for “those who sat under someone claiming to speak for God but didn’t”. She mentions Bill Gothard directly. Claiming 1 Corinthians 2 for Bill has having the “mind of Christ” is totally debatable and there are more that don’t think that about Bill than do. That doesn’t support your arguments for Bill and his claim that creeds are a work of man kinda show that he is heretical.
So . . . I am a servant of Jesus Christ, filled with His Spirit . . . A Child of God . . . And I am not beholden to Jinger or Bill or the counsel of Nicene or any church. I report directly to the Lord. I, like the men of Berea, check EVERYTHING out by Scripture, as enlightened by that same Holy Spirit. I memorize the “God Breathed” Word of God, not Bill’s writings or any creed. That is EXACTLY what Bill has taught, Lo these many years.
I am interested to see what Jinger has to say. Maybe I will agree with her, maybe I will not. She and I will both stand trembling before our Lord and give an account.
I believe it to be healthy for believer to discuss doctrine and church creeds in an amicable manner.
My wife grew up in a Lutheran home. She was baptized as an infant and later as a teenager came to faith in Christ at a church camp.
My father-in-law was an intelligent man, highly educated and a devout Lutheran. He served as a Elder in the Lutheran Church. When I would share my testimony of becoming a believer in Christ as an adult he would drag me back to the Church Catechism. He believed with all his heart that he came to faith as an infant and held on to that faith through his life.
For him the Scriptures were to be interpreted in light of the church creeds and writings of Martin Luther. These were his words.
I firmly believe the writings of men, no mater how great, pale in light of the Holy Scriptures.
On 11/18 above, Fish Bowl wrote in favor of amicable discussion. Many years ago, I followed an online discussion between two homeschooling fathers of differing denominations. One was Baptist, the other Presbyterian. Each made earnest and charitable attempts to persuade the other of his church doctrine. Neither budged from his doctrine. But following the debate was good education.
They loved Christ and one another, but each was loyal to his home team. Although the debate ended in a tie, there was plenty of victory to go around. They helped one another, and they helped me.
When I attended Seminary my Church History Professor was C. Daniel Kim. He grew up in North Korea and graduated from a Presbyterian Seminary. I remember a comment he made in class. He said in Seminary when there are some hallway theology discussions between students he would always win the argument by saying “John Calvin says such and such.” He said that would always end the discussion. He said when he entered Dallas Seminary to work on his Th.D he was not there long when a spirited discussion broke out among several students. He said he thought he was delivering the deciding blow when he said “John Calvin says such and such.” Then it happened, one enlightened student looked at him and said “SO WHAT!” Dr. Kim stated he sat down and said to himself “SO WHAT.” In that moment of time the Scriptures became the predominant Truth in his life. Dr. Kim is a great man of God who the Lord has used mightily in His Kingdom.
The Jinger Vuolo book promotion video is available online. On the video, Mrs. Vuolo explicitly renounced Gothard and his teaching. The video covered only a few generalities. Because I have not followed the Duggars, I saw only a random pretty woman. First, I saw her earnest face insisting that I was about to hear something important. Then some choreography followed. Gentle music played, and the scene cut to Mrs. Vuolo’s profile as she approached a stool. Briefly, the camera targeted her back and hindquarters as she mounted the stool to deliver her message.
We saw a woman with a dispute to settle, sales to promote, and people to rescue.
The dispute was against Gothard. Mrs. Vuolo implied that five years ago, Gothard had turned some of her friends apostate, so she felt constrained to rescue people from him.
Supposedly if we buy the book, we get the anti-Gothard details.
re: speaking for God? or sneering at difficult teaching?
Mrs. Vuolo said she wrote her book to refute people like Gothard who “claimed to be speaking for God, but didn’t.” This raises questions. For whom was Mrs. Vuolo speaking?
As for Gothard, what claim did he make about divine endorsement? He quoted Bible verses and inferred meaning from them, as all preachers do. Gothard did much teaching over his career, but rather than boast about divine authority, he let his teaching speak for itself. Some agreed, but others (like Mrs. Vuolo) disagreed.
Mrs. Vuolo emphasized the suffering she endured to write her new book, which will soon be available for sale. Was this martyrdom? or the price of commerce?
Does Mrs. Voulo believe in divine authority for her own message? or does Bill Gothard have a monopoly on hubris?
Was Gothard’s teaching tried and found wanting? or found difficult and left untried?
re: pillar and ground
On 11/20 above, Rob reminded us that St. Paul affirmed the important role of Christ’s church concerning truth. Indeed he did. According to his building metaphor, pillar and ground (or bulwark) are important. They support and elevate. Jesus compared himself to Moses’ brazen serpent which was lifted up for salvation. Who is going to lift up the Truth if Christ’s church does not?
“You cannot have God has your father is you do not have the Church as your mother”
St. Cyprian of Carthage 250 AD.
The idea that it’s just “me and my Bible” is not found any where by anybody pre-reformation times
I know we are getting into theological divides here . . . But that statement by the good saint is nowhere to be find in the Bible, regardless of what theologians may have held it.
As to “me and my Bible”, that IS found in Scripture:
Acts 17:11 “These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”
They searched the SCRIPTURES daily to cross check Paul.
“They” is the key word here. Like the Bereans, it was a collective search, NOT an individualized search. Me and my Bible is talking about individualization. They searched the scripture as a collective group. Very few people had their own Bibles. You missed my point.
At this moment I am hard pressed to see the difference. Whether I search the Scriptures daily, or my wife and I search the Scriptures daily together, or our entire church gathers to search the Scriptures . . . Daily . . . it remains that we search the SCRIPTURES, not the writings of important people.
re: solo scriptura
Rob makes a good point on 11/27 above. The famous Reformation doctrine was sola scriptura. We acknowledge our Bibles as our only infallible authority for doctrine. But Satan would substitute caricature for truth. The caricature has been called “solo scriptura.” Dare we isolate ourselves with only our Bibles? Of course not. Following Christ is a team sport.
Another metaphor says we are members of one body, and not merely one team. Members of a body are either mutually nourished, or not nourished at all.
re: Bibles before the Reformation
On 11/23 above, Rob seemed zealous for the church and dismissive of the Bible. What does it betoken if Christians did not treasure their Bibles before the 16th Century Reformation? How could they treasure Bibles which they did not possess? Access to Bibles was limited by access to printing. After mass printing became available, it was finally realistic for the common man to have his own Bible.
For the Christian, church and Bible must be mutual complements, not rivals! If one supplants the other, hasn’t something gone badly wrong?
David,
How do you think the Bible was put together and stated what was in it and was should not be in it? Did the Bible just fall from the sky? This has nothing to do with being dismissive of the Bible. Quit twisting around what I have written here.
I heard through the grapevine that Bill broke his leg and is in a recovery facility rehabbing. If it’s the hip, which is common at his age, that can be painful and a tough recovery. Maybe that’s old news. Still sad in that regard and that he has been unwilling to complete what he agreed to in Denver eight and a half years ago. If he had I believe his world would be so different today. Tell him I still pray for him and wish him a speedy recovery.
Yes, Bill broke his ankle in three places when falling off his ladder as he was pruning trees in his backyard. This was a week before his birthday, late October, last year. A neighbor saw it happen and called for help. It was a long recovery, as you can imagine. He was “incarcerated” in the Manor Care facility across from HQ for a few weeks, then went home. Various folks came to help, he ended up with a young man he had seen saved moving in with him for a while, there evenings on weekdays. By God’s grace he got out of the wheelchair and has been back to walking unassisted and driving for a number of months. Along the way he tested positive for COVID once – no symptoms I was aware of – and was definitely exposed to it again a year later after he called a men’s meeting and two of us – me included – came down with full blown COVID in the week following. Again, no symptoms.
I will pass on your love, thank you. I trust you are well . . . As we march on through these last days with Jesus by our side, faithful to the end of the ages.
re: falling from the sky
In a sense, both Bible and church fell from the sky. We are told that the sound of a windstorm (from the sky, where else?) preceded the tongues of fire which appeared on Christ’s followers at Pentecost. We are also told that all scripture is “given by inspiration from God” (there’s that sky-wind again). As both fell from the sky, shouldn’t they be complements instead of rivals?