What Does “Scripture Alone” Mean, and Why Should You Care?
What led the Roman Catholics astray was their understanding that the church birthed the Word of God, rather than the Word being the foundation of the church (Eph. 2:20). Yes, God gives us consciences, good sense, and even the traditions of the church from which we can glean insight into life, but knowledge of salvation is found in Scripture and Scripture alone.
When we talk about sola scriptura, we are talking about the fact that it is God’s word—not man’s—that gives us the instruction we need to attain everlasting life. It’s not to say that Christians should only read the Bible and nothing else. If your sink gets clogged, a plumbing manual will be of more use than anything in the Old or New Testament. Sola scriptura means that the Bible gives us everything we need to know about everything that truly matters—specifically, our salvation.
The Sufficiency of Scripture
At the time of the Reformation in the sixteenth century, the Roman Catholic Church did not deny the importance of the Word of God but rather its sufficiency. Rome said Scripture was insufficient to reveal to us the way to heaven. Rather, Rome argued that we needed something in addition to Scripture: the traditions of the church. According to theologian Michael Horton in The Christian Faith,
The Council of Trent [in the sixteenth century] established the view that Scripture and tradition are actually two forms of God’s Word—”written” and “unwritten”.” (p. 188)
What led the Roman Catholics astray was their understanding that the church birthed the Word of God, rather than the Word being the foundation of the church (Eph. 2:20). Yes, God gives us consciences, good sense, and even the traditions of the church from which we can glean insight into life, but knowledge of salvation is found in Scripture and Scripture alone.
You Might also like
-
We Should Improve
Written by James C. Pakala |
Sunday, January 15, 2023
We should improve by recognizing rather than completely ignoring certain other occasions of the Church Year. If this had been done historically, a huge benefit could have been the impeding of rampant secularism. Our culture makes much of Valentine’s Day, Mother’s Day and Halloween, for example, but they are totally ignorant when it comes to Ascension or Pentecost, and do little regarding Easter apart from bunnies and eggs.By “we” I basically mean those of us who as Christians are not in one of the ancient Churches (Armenian, Coptic, Ethiopic, various Orthodox, Roman, etc.) or in the Anglican or Lutheran traditions. There are 35,000 denominations in the world though obviously the number, whatever it is, constantly changes with splits, mergers, start-ups and terminations. Then there are the countless independents and mavericks. Although “we” as I use it here are fewer as individuals (in global statistics) than those in the Christian traditions I am excluding, we do account for almost all of the 35,000 denominations and all non-denominational churches. Why do I say we should improve? Although I am sure that we could do so in various ways, only one is my focus here.
As I write this it is early January but I am listening to glorious Christmas music on KFUO radio, a station of the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. This is possible because for them Christmas does not end at midnight on December 25. It lasts until January 5, which in (pre-medieval) Europe came to commemorate the visit of the magi to Bethlehem. Incidentally, decades ago I read a fine commentary on Matthew that suggested perhaps there were fourteen magi and, along with their entourage, entering Jerusalem naturally got everyone’s attention in a big way. The idea of three, of course, stems simply from the mentioning of three gifts.
The independent church where I grew up sang a few of the eleven carols in The Service Hymnal (thankfully the Trinity Hymnal has 41) on the few Sundays preceding Christmas. Advent was never mentioned and no special services were held during the season (apart from an unrelated New Year’s Eve service). In the United States Christmas was not even a national holiday until 1870 (seven years after Thanksgiving). In seminary in the 1960s we had a Presbyterian who was appalled that there was a Christmas tree in the lobby and refused to have his own family even take note of the holiday (well, apart from his not having classes). Although his position was not unlike that of some—not all—of our forebearers, we pitied his wife and children at Christmas. The PCA church we attend has a wonderful Christmas Eve service and also observes Advent, although only somewhat recently did I learn that the Second Advent of our Lord is at least as much the focus of Advent as is His incarnation. That is the reason repentance is central (as reflected in three of the four wreath candles being purple).
We should improve by recognizing rather than completely ignoring certain other occasions of the Church Year. If this had been done historically, a huge benefit could have been the impeding of rampant secularism. Our culture makes much of Valentine’s Day, Mother’s Day and Halloween, for example, but they are totally ignorant when it comes to Ascension or Pentecost, and do little regarding Easter apart from bunnies and eggs. Good Friday is not a holiday at all and some of our seminaries even held classes thereon at least until somewhat recently. At Army chaplain school I attended the Protestant service each morning, but catching wind that it was Ascension Thursday (marking 40 days after Easter) I went to the Catholic service where all the Scripture readings and everything pertained to our Lord’s Ascension. Asking a friend how the Protestant service was, I learned that after a couple of unrelated hymns the preacher’s focus was on how great it was that he became a chaplain.
James C. Pakala is a Minister in the Presbyterian Church in America; he is a Retired Chaplain, Army National Guard, and volunteer police chaplain.
Related Posts: -
Pastor, Give the People What They Need, Not What They Want
My pastor has long used the phrase, “Preach the Word and let the chips fall where they may.” In a nutshell, this encompasses his philosophy of ministry (and my own). The central task of the preacher is to preach. This should be a relatively uncontroversial statement to make in one sense, but in our current church culture, where the pastor is more often seen as a CEO or “brand builder” rather than a shepherd, it is an unpopular statement to make. The expectations placed on pastors are often flatly unbiblical ones, partly owing to the congregant’s lack of biblical wherewithal, yet partly owing to the pastor’s neglect to preach the full counsel of God (Acts 20:27).
There are obviously many other duties tasked to the shepherd of God’s flock, but they all invariably flow from the ministry of the Word and prayer (Acts 6:4). Visitations, funerals, weddings, counseling, even administrative duties, all must fall under the auspices of this primary duty. When they don’t, these duties invariably transform into something other than what is intended of them. In other words, these duties, when done rightly, are an extension of the pastor’s primary task of preaching and teaching. Counseling, marrying, burying, and more, are to be born out of the pastor’s obligation to the Scriptures rather than simply a perfunctory duty, and especially the main duty.
There are constant temptations to let the central task of the preacher be something other than the ministry of the Word and devotion to prayer. The obvious example of becoming the next big name in celebrity evangelicalism is relatively low-hanging fruit to identify, but it is nonetheless something the broader church culture places high currency on. However, the more subtle examples of this abound in the various ministries that churches can participate in. That is not to say it is inherently evil that someone desires the church to have a soup kitchen, for example, but good social deeds are not the primary focus of the church. Rather, the Great Commission is (Matt. 28:16-20).
Yet if you were to ask the average layperson what the primary duty of the church is, it is highly doubtful the Great Commission would come to mind for many. Some would say social justice is, others would claim that a vibrant youth group is what’s needed. For many though, the last thing that would come to their mind is making disciples of Christ. Even for those who would lift up the Great Commission as the primary task of the church would not adequately define what that actually means or would place heavier emphasis on one of the three means Christ has given us rather than encompassing evangelism, baptism, and teaching as the way one makes a mature disciple. I have sincere doubts that many pastors would even adequately define this as the church’s primary duty; after all, the positions of those in the pews is often a reflection of what comes from the pulpit.
It is of no small consequence that Paul’s dying exhortation to young Timothy was to, “Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction” (2 Tim. 4:2). The reason? “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths” (2 Tim. 4:3-4).
Brothers, we are living in this “out of season” time, where the multitudes prefer fables fit for old women to sound doctrine. -
The Multiple “Adams” of Scripture
Jesus is the last Adam, not the second Adam. Moreover, this only makes sense if there really were other “Adams”—other people who were given the priest-king vocation of the first Adam to subdue and rule, and through whom the world would be blessed with God’s presence, such as Noah, Abraham, the nation of Israel, and David. Jesus was not just the fulfilment of myths; He was the fulfilment of what God made man to be, and always wanted him to be. Jesus is the climax of salvation history; a history that began with the creation of the first Adam.
Jesus is the Last Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45). But did any other ‘Adams’ came before him? At least one, of course: the first Adam. But were there others who filled the Adamic role laid out in Genesis 1–2? In 1 Corinthians 15:45–47, there is an important contrast. Drawing on Genesis 2:7, Paul calls Adam ‘the first man Adam’, but he refers to Jesus in two different ways: Jesus is ‘the last Adam’ (v. 45) and ‘the second man’ (v. 47). Some think, therefore, that ‘second man’ is a synonym for ‘second Adam’,1,2 since as a ‘second Adam’ Jesus is the firstborn of the new creation.3 However, we must respect Paul’s precision—he calls Jesus ‘the last Adam’, not the ‘second Adam’. The term ‘second Adam’ does not appear in the Bible. Moreover, a review of biblical figures central to the history of redemption shows that the first Adam was not the only person given the Adamic commissions before the last Adam. We find that Jesus was the last in a series of ‘Adams’ whom God commissioned in much the same way as He commissioned the first Adam.
Adam: God’s first priest-king
Genesis 2:7 neither names Adam nor calls the ‘man’ God made from the dust the ‘first’ man. However, Paul makes that connection clear by adding the two words ‘first’ and ‘Adam’ to his quote of Genesis 2:7 in 1 Corinthians 15:45: “Thus it is written, ‘The first man Adam became a living being [emphases added]’” (figure 1). Paul clearly believed that the ‘man’ made on Day 6 of Creation Week in Genesis 1:26–27 was the same man God made in Genesis 2:7. This is perfectly consistent with how Jesus, according to Mark 10:6–8, read Genesis 2 as an expansion of specific events on Day 6 of the Creation Week.4
Adam was a special man. He was the first ever human, and he is the father of us all: “And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth” (Acts 17:26).5 As such, he was given a special role. God gave him, with Eve, dominion over the earth: “And God blessed them. And God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.’” (Genesis 1:28). Though this applied to Adam and Eve together, Adam was given the first task of exercising dominion over the earth by naming the animals (Genesis 2:19–20). Adam thus was given rule, and had a primacy of authority even among humans, since he is the one from whom all other humans have come. This all suggests Adam was the first king over creation.
The Garden of Eden was also special. God’s special meeting place with Adam was like the later tabernacle and temple.6 The golden lampstand in the tabernacle and temple likely symbolized the Tree of Life.7 The eastern gate to the Garden was guarded by cherubim (Genesis 3:24) just as the tabernacle entrance faced East (Exodus 27:13–16, Numbers 3:38) and both the tabernacle and temple were guarded by cherubim (Exodus 25:18–22; 26:31; 1 Kings 6:23–29). Furthermore, Adam was commissioned to ‘serve and obey’ God (Genesis 2:15–16). The same sort of commission, using the same words, was given to the priests and Levites who served in the tabernacle and temple (Numbers 3:7–8; 8:25–26; 1 Chronicles 23:32; Ezekiel 44:14).8,9 These points indicate Adam met with God and served Him in the garden ‘tabernacle’.10 They indicate Adam mediated God’s presence and blessing in creation. This suggests that Adam was the first priest.
… we suggest Adam was a priest-king: he ruled as a king over creation and served in God’s garden in Eden as a priest served in the tabernacle and temple.
Thus, we suggest Adam was a priest-king: he ruled as a king over creation and served in God’s garden in Eden as a priest served in the tabernacle and temple. But He failed in his role. He sinned by eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, which God told him not to eat from. And so, sin, decay, and death came into the world and infected the human race (Romans 5:12).11 And the whole world was subjected to futility (Romans 8:20–22).12 Man had made himself futile, so God made the world he was set over futile and thrust Adam from His special presence in the Garden.
Noah: A new Adam for a new beginning
After Adam, things only got worse as his corrupted ‘likeness’ (Genesis 5:3) spread. His first son murdered another son (Genesis 4). All but the best of his sons was beset with death (Genesis 5). And the earth eventually became full of violence and evil (Genesis 6:5, 11). So, God decided to destroy the earth with a Flood. “But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord” (Genesis 6:8).
Judgment would come on the old world, but a new world would arise afterwards. God would start again with Noah as a new ‘Adam’ for a new world.13 So, as God brought the animals to Adam for him to name (Genesis 2:19–20), He brought them to Noah to save on the Ark (Genesis 6:19–20). And after the Flood, when Noah came out of the Ark, Noah took up a priestly role and offered up acceptable sacrifices to God (Genesis 8:20) (figure 2).
In response, God reiterated to Noah the blessings he gave to Adam (Genesis 9:1–7). God told Noah and his sons to “be fruitful and multiply”. God gave them the kingly role of dominion over the animals. Although this time they were not commanded to take dominion; they were promised dominion. And this time the animals were given to them to eat, as plants were in Genesis 1. And, in light of the violence that existed before the Flood, new commands were given: no eating blood, and no shedding the blood of man.
But a new promise was also given: God would never again send a flood to destroy all flesh. The rainbow reminds us of God’s promise. Indeed, this promise indicates that, whatever floods have happened since, none have been so severe as to “destroy all flesh”. And only a global flood could destroy all flesh. Thus, Noah’s Adamic role reminds us that the Flood must have been global. The promises God gave after the Flood show that it was a new beginning for all creation.
Indeed, there are many literary parallels between Noah and Adam that suggest that Noah is a ‘second Adam’:Each is a father from whom all mankind is descended.
God’s bringing the animals to Noah for transport in the Ark (Genesis 6:19–20) is reminiscent of his bringing them to Adam for naming (Genesis 2:19–20).
Once the animals were on board the Ark, Noah was responsible for their preservation, fulfilling an element of man’s covenantal sovereignty originally assigned to mankind through Adam (Genesis 1:26).
God made a covenant with each of them—the Covenant of Creation14 with Adam and the New World Covenant with Noah (Genesis 9:9-17)—and each acted as a human mediator who represented all of mankind.
Each was given an earth, devoid of humans, and a command and a blessing to multiply and fill it with inhabitants (Genesis 1.28; 9:1).
Both had a relationship with the ground. Adam was created of the ground, and his name is derived from the Hebrew word for ‘ground’. In Noah’s case, the word ‘soil’ (Genesis 9:20 where he is called ‘a man of the soil’) is the same word translated elsewhere as ‘ground’ or ‘land’ (e.g. Genesis 6:7, 20).
Both had duties related to tending plants from which they could consume the fruit (Genesis 2:15; 9:20). Adam tended the garden that God had planted (Genesis 2:8) and Noah planted a vineyard (Genesis 9:20).
Both committed sins related to consuming fruit. Adam ate the forbidden fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (Genesis 3:7). Noah became drunk consuming a by-product of the fruit of the vine (Genesis 9:21).
The shame of nakedness was associated with their sins (Genesis 3:7, 10–11; 9:21).
Their nakedness had to be covered by others (Genesis 3:21; 9:23).
Both had to toil to maintain their livelihoods from the cursed ground.
Both of their personal sins introduced conflict into their families—Cain murdered Abel (Genesis 4:8) and was banished from his brothers (Genesis 4:12), and Canaan (Noah’s grandson) became a slave to his brothers (Genesis 9:25–26).
Both had sons (Cain and Ham) who committed sins, which became defining sins for their age.
Both had immediate descendants who were cursed (Genesis 4:11; 9:25).
Both lived for almost a millennium—Adam, 930 years; Noah, 950 years.
The eventual death of each, as the result of the Curse (Genesis 2:17), is reported with similar words “all the days” (Genesis 5:5; 9:29).
Despite their sin, both walked with God (implied in Genesis 3:8, and 6:9) and both believed God and took Him at His word (implied in Genesis 3:20 and 4:1, and 6:22).Even though Noah is not called a ‘second Adam’, he acted in such a capacity.
Both knew that God required shed blood and animal sacrifices as a type for the ultimate Atonement which man needs to cover sin (Genesis 4:4; 8:20).
Both were blessed by God, with the same blessing (Genesis 1:28; 9:1).Read More
Related Posts: