Subscribe to Posts
sola jesus, the scriptural sola
Sola Jesus rather than sola scriptura is the scriptural sola. By asserting Sola Jesus one is honoring, not denigrating Scripture. What is the purpose of Scripture according to Scripture? Careful. The statement of a thing’s purpose sets the trajectory for our understanding of the thing and must be carefully stated. Is the purpose of Scripture simply to lead and guide us, as a text might lead and guide us? To exercise authority over us? We read, agree, and do, as though we were reading an instruction manual for life? Or is the purpose of Scripture to reveal Jesus who leads and guides us?
The latter sounds scary doesn’t it? Radical. Yet isn’t this the scariness of the early Jesus movement reflected in the New Testament? Already in the era of the New Testament’s coming into being, the Scripture is becoming more central the life of Israel. The temple is not fully functioning. It’s been rebuilt by Herod and supplied with a priesthood operating at the pleasure of Rome. The glorious presence of old is not to be found there. By 70 A.D., when the New Testament writings are still coming together, the temple has been utterly destroyed.
As Israel is reeling at the shock of this–her center, her organizing place corrupted by pagan influence and then destroyed–she grasps onto her sacred text as the center of her life and worship. Who can blame her?
But meanwhile, another movement within Israel is forming. This is a movement that seeks to change the way Israel understands herself and her mission. Israel is to become a seed that dies a kind of death leading to a new life, this time for the nations. Unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it cannot bear fruit: the Jesus path for the new Israel.
And the followers of this path insist: Jesus is the Temple. He is the sacred place. And Jesus is the Word, made flesh. Places for worship continue. The followers gather in homes and various other places. The Scripture continues to be loved, read, trusted, obeyed, but with a twist: as a book which reveals a person who is alive, who is with us, who is nearby, whose Spirit is now available.
It’s shocking. It’s upsetting. It leads to much soul searching and perplexity. The centerpiece of the Scripture known and loved and trusted and obeyed by Jesus and his followers is the Law and the Prophets. But Jesus takes these Scriptures in hand and interprets them as though he and no other were the author, and knew the author’s deepest intentions. And his handling of this book is truly shocking.
Peter goes to a rooftop to say his noon prayers. This probably takes place a decade or so after Jesus has died, risen and ascended and poured out his Spirit. Peter has a vision up there on the roof. A sheet is lowered of unclean animals and Peter is instructed, Rise, Peter, Kill and eat! The words seem to him to be a temptation. Contrary to his orthodoxy. But the voice, the voice, is clearly the voice of Jesus. Jesus tells him never to call anything unclean that God has made pure.
One can say that Peter wasn’t being commanded to literally break the kosher law. Jesus was talking about Gentiles, not shrimp. But the metaphor (shrimp = gentiles) was based on the overturning of the kosher law. That was the shock value, the overturning of a Scriptural command.
Perhaps among other things, it’s a test for Peter and for the early Jesus movement. Will they be text-driven as the rest of Israel is becoming, or will they be driven by the voice of the living Lord? Will the text become an end in itself, or a means to an end–the sign-post or the destination?
I remind you, this is in the text. I’m not making this up. This is not some dream I had or vision or anything of the sort.
It’s Scripture inferring Sola Jesus, I think.
Tags: bible, Israel, peter, scripture, sola jesu, sola jesus, sola scriptura
February 6th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Boy, you are really stirring the pot.
I think I see what you are suggesting and it seems tempting, but it also terrifies me.
Do any NT rules remain? How can I tell if what I think Jesus is telling me through dreams or impressions is Him and not my own OCD tendencies without the Bible as a guide? How can we determine if a new revelation is really from God?
Even back then. I probably would have doubted Peter’s dream. As a matter of fact, you could probably count me as one of the ones who called for the death of Jesus for the same reason I would currently doubt any contemporary person who claimed some new and special extra-biblical knowledge about God.
I hear there is a book called ‘A Course in Miracles’ that the author claims is a revelation of Jesus, yet it contradicts the Bible. How do I know if it is indeed a new revelation? Is the author in the same place as Peter at that roof?
This is all very disturbing for me. Is there any solid foundation upon which I can rest my faith?
It’s funny because as Christians, we find it easy to ignore Old Testament rules because Jesus ‘fulfilled’ them, whatever that means (how do you fulfill not eating shellfish). But I bet the Pharisees had the same struggle I am having.
If God is calling me to some new extra biblical direction, I am in deep trouble. Without the Bible as my foundation of at least the basics of Christianity, I feel like there is nothing solid to hang on.
February 6th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Joao, If you’re reading this as an effort to demote the bible, that’s not what I’m after. I’m trying to get at the Scriptural purpose of scripture. I think treating the bible itself as the end point or the terminus of revelation is what I’m suggesting isn’t a biblical viewpoint. Jesus is that endpoint or terminus.
And of course, the revelation that Peter had was historic and extraordinary, but I think it’s also instructive. That Jesus is Lord of the Bible. If he’s not living and active we’re toast, with or without the Bible. There is a consistency between Jesus and the Bible. These are words that the Spirit who raised him from the dead inspired after all. But there is a Him behind the text. And that changes the way we engage the text.
I think you’re comparing your own experience with charismatic experience and that’s not what I’m after in this sola jesu stuff.
Thanks for the poking, it’s helping me poke my own thinking. That’s kinda the point of a blog isn’t it?
February 6th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
:
All that is true originates in God. All that is true was created by God. It’s not only scripture that is God’s word; all that is true is God’s word.
Here’s an old-timey quote from:
The Collected Works of Theodore Parker : Sermons, Prayers, 1879, p 192.
“When you know that God is infinite, is everywhere, then all space is holy ground; all days are holy time; all truth is God’s word; all persons are subjects of religious duty, invested with unalienable religious rights, and claiming respect and love as fellow-children of the same dear God. Then, too, all work becomes sacred and venerable; common life, your highest or your humblest toil, is your element of daily communion with men, as your act of prayer is your communion with the Infinite God.”
http://books.google.com/books?id=_VRGAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA192&lpg=PA192&dq=%22all+truth+is+god’s+word%22&source=web&ots=iIJkaOYG_U&sig=rNoR1RhMjjx3lRBaWJzN9f1Vyso&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA192,M1
February 7th, 2009 at 8:55 am
Archie
I like that one.
sorta the same as Rom. 11:36 For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen.
and
Col 1:16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
which I believe is Ken’s point.
February 7th, 2009 at 9:36 am
“A student is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master. It is enough for the student to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master.” How did Jesus use the scriptures? He quoted them when tempted by the devil. He amazed the teachers in the temple with his understanding of the scriptures when he was a young boy. As he lived his life, he was always referring to them as he observed the lives of men.
Now we have the same scriptures he did, as well as the new testament of his life, the church, and the revelation of the age to come. If we are going to define the scriptures and the revelation of Jesus in our lives, I think the scriptures should be the guide and gauge of our relationship with him. By our own words we will be justified, or condemned. If we use the scriptures to judge and condemn others, then we are putting ourselves above our master and teacher. At the same time, if we treat the scriptures as if they are not at the center of our walk with Christ, then we are putting ourselves above our master and teacher.
As I said in a previous post, People always want to know if you are one of those “bible reading/believing” Christians. And if you are, the eyes begin to roll and they automatically assume you are a right wing fanatic. When you do the “main and the plain” of following Christ, praying, reading scripture, obeying and doing what it says, our culture thinks you are wacked.
February 7th, 2009 at 11:31 am
Amen to Gem!
February 7th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
So do I understand correctly that you are suggesting one should not view scripture and the voice of Jesus as one and the same?
February 7th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Brian, It seems to me that Scripture needs to be read in/with/and under the power of the Spirit. Without that, it’s just ink on the page, like Paul says, a dead letter.
February 7th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
So I’m a picky person when it comes to language and although I think I understand the intent of where you’re going, I’m having trouble with the words.
Context is important when dealing with language, so its important to note that the context of Sola Scriptura. The point of the doctrine was not to exclude Jesus or a personal relationship with Jesus, or the role of the Holy Spirit, but rather to subordinate the role of “Sacred Tradition” and church leadership to function under scripture, not equal to it.
So by analogy, you seem to be implying that the role of scripture, and everything else for that matter, should be subordinate to Jesus, not equal to it. It all sounds good, but how do you put that in practice?
Scripture is a fundamental way Jesus is revealed. The Holy Spirit is another. Both revelations can be received by individuals or in the context of community. But how do you draw the right boundaries around this revelation to protect against craziness and abusive “group think”?
The concept of Sola Scriptura held up scripture as a fundamental boundary: If you claim to have a revelation of Jesus that is inconsistent with scripture, regardless of what tradition or modern leadership say, you’re wrong. Or at least the burden of proof rests on you to show how your revelation of Jesus really is consistent with scripture (since we know that the interpretation of what scripture “says” is subject to review).
So if you replace Sola Scriptura with Sola Jesu, how do you define the boundaries of what constitutes a revelation of Jesus?
I’m all for highlighting the role of scripture in revealing Jesus and drawing people into a personal relationship with Jesus, but I think the phrase “Sola Jesu” doesn’t do a good job of communicating your point (unless your point was primarily to provoke discussion which it does very well
One more persnickety point: Your reference to Peter on the roof seems to imply the context is Kosher food laws and Jesus is overturning them because He knew the ultimate intent of them. However, the context of the passage is clearly not food law but rather evangelizing Gentiles. The vision to Cornelius sets up the passage and Peter’s visit to Cornelius follows the passage. So the passage is not about overturning Peter’s understanding of scripture. He never did act on the command and there’s a case to made that he remained Kosher. But God used the vision to challenge another, unscriptural value Peter developed, a bias against Gentiles as legitimate recipients of the Gospel.
February 8th, 2009 at 12:02 am
You go, Bob.
I would just add that if one perceives submission to the authority of Scripture and submission to the authority of Jesus as oppositional approaches, one is forced to choose. But it’s an artificial choice. This is a good example of what I call the Stereoscope Principle, where two things are the subject of an ‘either/or’ argument, but are really only irreconcilable when looked at from a single perspective. When the two things are placed in apposition rather than opposition, the whole picture pops into 3-D.
With such arguments the answer isn’t one or the other. It’s yes.
February 8th, 2009 at 7:13 am
Bob, Excellent persnickety point on the kosher law. Must ponder and revise accordingly. Martha, I’ll now have to look up “apppositional”!
February 8th, 2009 at 9:25 am
Ken,
No argument with one needing to read Scripture in/with/and under the power of the Spirit. I don’t really think that was my question though. My question is whether one can reliably assume Scripture and the voice of Jesus are one and the same, in your opinion?
February 8th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
Ken, this doesn’t make sense to me. From the standpoint of a non-believer, Jesus is a character (albeit a very important one) in a story told in the Bible. Whether or not you believe that he also “speaks” to you makes no difference. You learned about Jesus from your Bible, so by saying that Jesus “speaks” to you, you’re just saying that you see a similarity between what Jesus did/said in the Bible and what you sense this spiritual force doing/saying in your life now. If you didn’t have the Bible you would have absolutely no name or person to attach the spiritual entity to. However you slice it, the Bible DEFINES who Jesus is. As a believer, if it’s between the Bible, tradition, or experience to define who Jesus is (or to have the chief role in defining him), then I’ll take the Bible hands down. Nobody (not even Luther) would have argued that experience and tradition play NO role in understanding Jesus. Just that the Scriptures are to have the final authority and utmost importance in that definition.
February 9th, 2009 at 10:07 am
Ken, what is your opinion regarding the following controversy, not about the persons involved, just about the content:
“The news is going round that Richard Cunningham, director of UCCF, said
God never forgives – he punishes.
Apparently he said this during a talk at the recent Word Alive conference.”
http://www.energionpubs.com/wordpress/2007/04/god-doesnt-forgive/
A comment from Rosemary, a UCCF staff worker, regarding the above quote:
“I know some in my Impact group were puzzled about Richard’s statement – but understood it really, saying, ‘It’s because sin is either punished on Christ or on us in hell, isn’t it?’ God offers forgiveness for sin – but only through trusting in the death of his Son because that’s where sin was punished. This contrasts with the idea that God is ‘in a permanent attitude of forgiveness’ whereby we just need to recognise that. God does love us – with a holy love, not just an ‘aw shucks sin doesn’t really matter; it’s all forgiven’ love. That wouldn’t be love: ‘This is how we know love… God sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.’”
http://catwin.blogspot.com/2007/04/word-alive4-hebrews-911-28.html
Hmmm… Ken, what do you think, does God ever forgive without punishment, and if not, why not?
February 9th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
I have to agree with Bob. Jesus never contradicts the scriptures. The incident with Peter on the roof was about bringing the gospel to the Gentiles. The scriptures never forbid Jews from eating with Gentiles, walking on the same side of the street as Gentiles or any of the “fence” laws that the Jewish people had developed in order to keep from possibly breaking any of the laws. Jesus had to challenge Peter’s suppositions. He wasn’t suggesting that Peter could now eat shrimp, he was preparing him for the men who were now on their way to his front door.
It’s the same thing as Jesus and the disciples eating grain on the Sabbath or Jesus healing on the Sabbath. Jesus wasn’t breaking the Law of God; he was breaking the fence laws created by man.
I’ve got to be honest with you, when I read this post I became very concerned as to where this could lead. We could then say that Jesus has revealed to someone that what he once said about homosexuality or adultery was no longer valid. Jesus just changed his mind. I’m not saying that’s where you’re going with this, but someone else could and it’s disconcerting.
February 9th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
I can’t keep up with you all! But I am pondering these excellent comments, believe me. JJ I can give you a quick response: if it’s between the bible, tradition and experience, I’d trust the bible hands down too. But unfortunately it’s not just between those three that’s the issue I’m wrestling with (which is whether or not “sola scriptura” is a scripturally faithful way of dealing with the authority issue). And happy, this gentile/kosher thing is a fascinating alley that needs exploring. The implication of what you’re saying, of course, is that Jewish believers may be obligated to maintain the kosher law. A position some messianic Jews maintain. But to the point of fear at the end of happy’s post. I get it. But I think fear is bad for discernment and for reading Scripture faithfully and for obedience to Jesus, so I do my best to ignore fear when it comes to these things. Otherwise, I wouldn’t be wrestling with these issues in a blog. Bob, I’m pondering your question knowing that you are careful with words so I want to be with mine. And Martha, I still have to look up appositional and understand how that applies to the transfiguration use of Jesus only in relation to Moses and Elijah, representing, I think, the Law and the prophets. I’m looking for a higher, more faithful view of Scripture, not one that denigrates it in any way. I can imagine someone not trusting me on that, but it’s so.
February 9th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
I agree with both Bob and Martha. By presenting this as an either or issue, you are creating a false dilemma. I found your analogy to scripture as a window or tear to be interesting but somewhat deficient. Even viewing scripture as a tear in space/time or as a portal puts God at a distance. For me, that whole analogy is akin to saying “Why focus on the car when it’s really about the engine?” My view of raw scripture is that it is like the body of Adam prior to receiving God’s breath. It is only when the words of scripture become infused with the Holy Spirit that they have the power to *be* Jesus (using your analogy).
February 9th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
ap·po·si·tion
A placing side by side or next to each other.
Ex-Christian, I don’t believe that we need to be punished, I believe that we need to be loved. We need healing and wholeness, not punishment. What do you think about that?
February 9th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
ralf, good to hear from you, especially if you’re the best-bass-player-I’ve-ever-heard ralf. Here’s where I have apparently failed miserably in framing this issue. I’m talking about “sola scriptura” as THE answer to the authority issue. The reformers didn’t say “sola scriptura” and “sola Jesu” is the answer to the authority issue. They said “sola scriptura” and not “sola jesu”. This concerns me because the only sola I see in scripture is sola jesu. I’d gladly say it’s both sola scriptura and sola jesu, if that could be understood as Martha described when she talked about an appositional approach. I just don’t know what that means yet. In other words by asserting over and over again since the REformation that the answer to the authority issue is “sola scriptura” have we obscure the scriptural sola, which is sola jesu? My attempt at analogy re window or tear to me means a more immediate connection with God through Scripture not a more distant one. I like your description of “raw scripture like the body of adam prior to receiving God’s breath.” It’s part of what I’m trying to get at, the idea that sola scriptura can reinforce a “raw scripture” approach unwittingly. Man, this is interesting, and I appreciate all of your comments! Loved the last sentence in Ralf’s post as well. Ralf, you should start a blog!
February 10th, 2009 at 12:52 am
It’s my understanding that the reformers latched onto ’sola scriptura’ in reaction to the abuses they were then suffering under the human authorities in the Church. Jesus’ overriding authority was never in question, and I don’t suppose anyone on either side of their conflict would have downplayed it. The Reformation was just one of those periods in Church history when we were working out how you do this thing. Today, questioning ’sola scriptura’ is a logical continuation of the process, since 21st century people have different things to wrestle with about the nature of Scripture than 16th century people did. It seems to me that–just as 500 years ago–the ultimate and supreme authority of Jesus himself is not really in doubt. What we wrestle with is how do we accurately hear him speak, what is he saying, and what does obedience to that look like. In the same way, I think that you’d be hard pressed to find believers who would go so far as to deny the divine inspiration and authority of Scripture. We’re just wrestling through the new questions that the peculiarities of our own era raise about it.
Thank God for the Holy Spirit. If God weren’t actually in the trenches with us working all this stuff out for good, we wouldn’t stand a chance.
February 10th, 2009 at 3:16 am
Mark, I agree with you 100% that “we need healing and wholeness, not punishment.” I suspect that Ex-Christian would agree with you too.
Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father, and we will be satisfied.” Jesus replied, “Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and yet you still don’t know who I am? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father! So why are you asking me to show him to you? Don’t you believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words I speak are not my own, but my Father who lives in me does his work through me.” John 14:8-10 (NLT)
Throughout his life on earth, Jesus spent most of his time with other people, with sinners. During most of his ministry he was surrounded by sin and sinners. He sought the company of sinners. He sat down and fellowshipped with sinners. Jesus was always holy, 24/7, even while fellowshipping with sinners, and yet no part of his holiness required him to turn his back on sinners, or to banish sin from his sight.
If we have seen Jesus, we have seen the Father. That’s why it’s called “revelation”. Jesus has revealed the Father to us, in himself. The Father is not required by his holiness to banish all sin from his presence any more than Jesus was required by his holiness to banish all sin from his presence.
During his life, Jesus called every person to repentance, healing and wholeness through his love and forgiveness, thereby revealing to us that the Father has always called every person to repentance, healing and wholeness through his love and forgiveness. According to Jesus, that is what the Father’s holiness is all about.
Sola Jesu!
February 10th, 2009 at 8:13 am
Mark, I think that you are right. People need love, not punishment.
February 10th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Martha, Yes indeed. We often forget the context of these resolutions, and once the context changes we are disturbed to reopen the conversation. For example, I think Sola Scriptura was powerfully influenced by a naive understanding of how plain the message of Scripture actually is, as if it’s meaning were clear on every topic it addresses (like the legitimate reasons for divorce/remarriage, or the role of women, or the relationship between divine sovereignty and human free will, or the best way to structure a church). As if 100 reasonable believers approaching the text with an open mind would come to the same conclusions about what it says on these topics. The fracturing of the church as an institution expressed proved otherwise. We forgot that Peter himself said that many of Paul’s writings were “difficult to understand.” In Scripture he said that. Sola Scriptura was also influenced by rationalism, I think. The Reformers, influenced by rationalism, were reacting against the Catholic approach to miracles so the Spirit was not trusted as much. We’ve been trying for the last 100 years or so to make a place for experience of a living Lord.
February 10th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
On the punishment vs. love question, I think it absolutely true people need love, but let’s not forget the very reason Jesus had to suffer and die on the cross, our sins, which needed punishment for justice to be maintained.
Sin is serious, look at human history to see how serious it is. Just turn on the 6 o’clock news.
It also helps to remember all the historic injustices and atrocities that were never ‘punished’, like the Khmer Rouge’s actions in Cambodia, Hitler, Stalin, probably many actions of our own government, what the CIA caused by backing Pinochet in Chile, the native americans, general racism, rape, etc, etc, etc.
First we want those responsible to pay and be punished without mercy and this would be right and just.
It’s just that we open our eyes a bit, we realize we all have the same potential of doing the same evils, and thus may need to be dealt the same punishment we wish on others.
THEN, we find it necessary to welcome Jesus’ love, which can both comfort us and, thru his sacrifice, punish the injustices of all mankind.
So one can’t really separate the punishment and love aspects of Jesus. He deals with both.
February 10th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Ken, you just mentioned your “experience of a living Lord.” Whenever you and other christians think that you are experiencing your living Lord, at the same time many other people of other faiths are thinking that they are experiencing their own living Lords. The objective reality of these experiences is that all of you are experiencing what is going on in your brains and central nervous systems. But subjective reality is not the same thing as objective reality. From all that you have written over the last several months in this blog about your experience of a living Lord, it appears to me that you are actually experiencing a compulsive, obsessive internal delusion that has long been a vital part of your internal security system, your security blanket, if you will. No offense meant, that’s just my honest opinion.
February 10th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Mark, Of course that is possible. It’s also the case that the same could be said of virtually all human experience, including our knowing of anything or anyone which as you correctly point out takes place within our subjective selves, mediated by our bodies.
February 11th, 2009 at 12:11 am
Ken,
As I was falling asleep last night, meditating on the concepts being discussed here I think I began to get a better idea, I think, of where you are coming from. Swirling through my thoughts were how the authority Jesus gave the church to bind and loose, the reality of the Law being written on our hearts, and the church being the body of Christ all fit together. Each seemed like the facets of a beautiful gem (at least it did as I was drifting into dreamland).
Through the Holy Spirit, God writes the Law on our hearts. As we press into to him and set apart our lives as holy sacrifices, transforming our minds, Christ is revealed in us, our hope of glory. We become more and more like him. Someday we’ll see Him face to face and we’ll be like Him for we’ll see Him like he is. We’ll see Jesus, Sola Jesu.
In the mean time, though, we’re stuck with imperfect vessels and struggle with our sin nature. “The sacrifice keeps crawling off the altar” as one of my favorite pastors used to say. So God gives us something more concrete than our “hearts”.
He gives us scripture. Scriptures give us something to focus our minds and hearts on when all around is chaos.
But scriptures are not perfect either, at least not as received. There may be a perfect version of scripture in there somewhere, but you can’t do any serious study of textual criticism and say with a straight face that we have “it”, the perfect manuscript. What to do?
Well for one thing. We ought to get a clue that if the God of the universe, who created all things, didn’t see to it that we got a perfect manuscript…maybe He was trying to tell us something! Maybe it’s a clue that He didn’t want to leave us a set of 20th century propositional truths.
I love the metaphor NT Wright uses of scripture as a play. There is a narrative structure throughout, a flow to it all. Act I, Creation. Act II, The Fall. Act III, Israel’s Redemption then Exile. Act IV, Jesus and the Victory of God. Act V, The Church. But Act V is incomplete. We have the opening scenes, the Book of Acts, and the closing scenes, the Book of Revelation. We then have to work to faithfully improvise everything in between by studying the play as written, so to speak, and do our part as the Spirit leads. What is the Church after all, but the body of Jesus, Solu Jesu.
How do we know whether we’re acting things out faithfully? How do work out the details? Well, Jesus gave us, His body, the “keys to the Kingdom of Heaven”, i.e. the power to bind and loose. This was a common phrase among the rabbis. Binding and loosing are rabbinical ways of saying forbidding and allowing. This is what a rabbi did when they interpreted the Law. They judged what the Law allowed and didn’t allow. When a rabbi thought his disciple was ready to take on this responsibility, he declared that he was giving him the keys to the kingdom heaven. So in Matthew 16 after disciples finally grasp who Jesus is, the Messiah, Jesus in essence transfers the authority for interpreting scriptures from the temple priesthood and the Pharisees to His disciples. No wonder they wanted to kill Him!
So the Word becomes flesh, and provides the interpretive lens through which all scripture is to be interpreted, and end point to which it all leads. Sola Jesu. Then through the Holy Spirit constitutes a global, organic, growing representation of His body here on earth. Sola Jesu. And invests that body with keys to the Kingdom and the responsibility to ensure future generations understand how interpret the story. Who has the keys? Sola Jesu.
I think I’m starting to pick up what you’re laying down.
February 11th, 2009 at 11:39 am
Ken, I’m intrigued by your hypothesis that Scripture teaches Sola Jesu. To understand what you are trying to say, I first had to brush up on my understanding of Sola Scriptura. This brief article helped me to do that:
Does the Bible Teach “Sola Scriptura”?
Viewpoint by Kenneth R. Samples
http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0037a.html
I haven’t found any good articles that discuss your hypothesis, so could you recommend a few?
Thanks.
February 11th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Bob.
Awesome summary!
February 11th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
I am going to lead a bible study discussion with some fellow christian students on this topic since it got me thinking. I have enjoyed reading everyone’s remarks and I think I have come to my own conclusion on this matter. I can’t say Sola Jesu or Sola Scripture or Sola Church or Sola Experience – it has to be a mish mash of all of them, one without the others doesn’t make sense to me in my own reasoning, I need all of them to put together this thing called my faith.
One point i’d like to make is that if we rely on sola jesu (ie. GOD) then anyone who has a revelation from him, like Joseph Smith, can say that it was from God (ie. Jesus) – even though there are things about his revelation which are a clear contraindication to scripture.
My faith is richer I feel because I combine all of these things. If I relied solely on Jesus I would actually feel lost since I am not in the habit of quieting myself to listen for his still small voice and I don’t feel that I am walking in the spirit 24/7 either.
If I relied solely on scripture I would miss those precious times when I do get a sense of Jesus’s presence and that strong sense of him telling me something. Not to mention that scripture is interpreted by people which are prone to error.
My favorite preacher lady says sitting in church doesn’t make you a christian just as sitting in your garage doesn’t make you a car so I don’t think church solely, would do it for me either.
Experience, my experiences lead me to different things, not all of which are holy or godly so I am glad I don’t have to just rely on that to know God – but God did say we would know him through his works…
All in all, it’s incomplete for me unless I combine these things to enrich my faith.
Thanks for the food for thought.
February 12th, 2009 at 3:46 am
Hey Ken, there are plenty of five-legged stools around! Here’s a prop for your next sermon about them!
http://www.promedproducts.com/itemdetail.asp?src=SHOPPING&item=898%200150
http://www.promedproducts.com/showimage.asp?item=58988L.jpg
Meanwhile, do you know of any good articles that discuss your hypothesis that Scripture teaches Sola Jesu?
February 12th, 2009 at 6:12 am
Forgive me for stating the obvious and simple. The scriptures sincerely applied by a humble spirit, will lead you into a living relationship with Jesus. The scriptures by themselves are lonely words. People working and walking out their salvation, supporting each other in the process; turn the words into the greatest love letter ever written. The heartfelt posts in this blog point us in the right direction. Ken thanks for a challenging and thought provoking post.
February 12th, 2009 at 8:47 am
I’ve tweaked the section in the post on Peter’s Joppa roof vision to incorporate Bob and Martha’s excellent point that the overturning of the kosher command implicit in the vision was metaphorical, a matter of gentiles, not shrimp. Of course, I’m not predicting that this will be SATISFACTORY!
February 12th, 2009 at 9:28 am
It satisfies me. (You’re making me hungry with all this talk of shrimp!)
Meanwhile, do you know of any good articles that discuss your hypothesis that Scripture INFERS Sola Jesus?
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:51 pm
New book coming?