• home
• theology
• conspiracy
• articles
• it
• contact

Dear the Briefing,

Many thanks for including (in your last issue) a number of the biblical arguments from those who believe God intended Genesis to be understood substantially more literally than the Briefing posited.

sola Scriptura revisited

I was also glad that you highlighted in your response the issue of sola Scriptura. Further, that you honestly and openly admitted that your understanding is that Scripture while being the final authority for the interpretation of itself, is not the sola (only) authority. Likewise, your 'modest goal' showed your wisdom, for indeed that is the paramount question: 'Is it possible to maintain and uphold sola Scriptura while coming to different conclusions about the best way to read Genesis 1-3?'

Below I hope to demonstrate that you have been unable to maintain and uphold sola Scriptura in coming to your conclusion, both by your own admission (that Scripture is not the only/sola authority to interpret Scripture), and by your own practice (by observing the practical methodology applied in the Design of Genesis issue).

The doctrines that the reformers rediscovered, of sola Scriptura and perspicuity, are derived from the scriptures themselves. Verses like these might be used: 'your word is truth' (Jn 17:17), 'in your light we see light' (Ps 36:9), 'learn... not to go beyond what is written' (1Co 4:6), 'add to, or take away from, the bible and you will regret it big time' (paraphrase - cf Rev 22:18-19), 'the Holy Spirit, whom my Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things' (Jn 14:26), 'and they will all be taught by God' (Jn 6:45), 'for the Spirit searches everything even the deep things of God' (1Co 2:10) etc.

I do not find any verses except the well-known and equally well-refuted Catholic ones (Mt 16:18, 2Th 2:15) that support any other authority - I imagine you must have, please could you state the verses?

Calvin & Luther

Calvin and Luther used church fathers where they expressed truth brilliantly, herectics where they concisely demonstrated a relevant error, and pagans where they demonstrated useful contrasts or agreements. If you observe Calvin's exegesis in the institutes it is dominated by Scripture, church fathers will make an appearance later on, and only more rarely pagan philosophies - and these as a matter of interest - I have never seen 'authority' attributed to them.

An excerpt from a church father carries 'authority' because it harnesses the power of Scripture so well in its quote, by usage and explanation thereof. It is like a brilliant biblical preacher - the Word of God powerfully applied under the influence of the Spirit can often have an effect like unto authority on a man. I would argue this is a different kind of authority, it is not interpretational authority. It is more encouragement that you are on the right track in your use of Scripture to interpret Scripture, and particularly encouraging when one church father after another across the centuries work together, pointing you in the same direction.

Certainly compared with Scripture the church fathers are nothing in authority terms, indeed it is only their harnessing and utilization of Scripture that gives them their authority. They will help you to understand a passage often, rather like good Christian books by wise men - part of God's gift of teaching to his Church. This does not mean they have authority over Scriptures and its interpretation. I've got to include an external link here to some very well researched and referenced writing on Calvin's exegesis, use of sola Scriptura and the patristic writings.

Having said all that, I noted a profound absence of church fathers in the original Briefing article. Was there one? Had you chosen to quote Luther and Calvin on the Design of Genesis you would have heard them coming back against you - absolutely rejecting allegorist interpretations. Consider the following URLs (containing extensive quotations from their original works):

• Luther: Many quotes and one or two more. Also:
  The Days of creation were ordinary days in length. We must understand that these days were actual days (veros dies), contrary to the opinion of the Holy Fathers. Whenever we observe that the opinions of the Fathers disagree with Scripture, we reverently bear with them and acknowledge them to be our elders. Nevertheless, we do not depart from the authority of Scripture for their sake.
  Luther, M., as cited in Plass, E.M., 1991. What Martin Luther Says, a Practical In-Home Anthology for the Active Christian.
• Calvin: Many quotes. Also:
  albeit the duration of the world, now declining to its ultimate end, has not yet attained six thousand years. God's work was completed not in a moment but in six days.
  McNeil, J.T. (ed) 1960. Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion 1, The Westminster Press, pp. 160-161, 182.

Also, in reading Calvin's Institutes you can't help love how you can't do it without an open bible next to you. His practice of exegesis and sola Scriptura thus profoundly differs from that exhibited in the Briefing issue 337. I mean it was at least three quarters spent on looking at non-bible or pagan philosophies and ideas - neo-darwinism, evolution, intelligent design, etc. The Bible analysis that was there was also heavily influenced by inter-reaction with modern science, as opposed to the breadth and depth of scriptures and the biblical context (i.e. the hallmarks of good biblical theology). The exegesis and hermeneutics were such a far cry from Calvin and Luther that it amazes me you have the boldness to drag their names into the argument as props for your methodology.

the Design of the Resurrection

If you were to produce such an issue using the same balance of articles and weighting given to science and pagan/non-bible philosophies as used in the Design of Genesis, what might be the conclusions? I imagine your subscriptions would drop sharply!!! I do not believe you ever would, but can you not see that there is something very dangerous about the kind of bible handling that has gone on in your analysis of this subject.

---

I thought the reference to Zwingli and Luther was good - we certainly find it hard to understand how our brethren do not consider that millions of years of bloodshed and pain 'flatly contradicts' the Bible's 'very good' creation account in Genesis 1, and the character of God!

It was a little disappointing to see you quoting once again from sections of undisputed poetry (Hannah's song and Job), in order to challenge literal readings of Genesis (as with the Flat Earth mockery), while avoiding the issue we raised of the local context and literary type issues presented by the rest of Scriptures on Genesis 1-3 (and 4-11).

Peace and love,

in the King of kings,

Thomas (once again!)

PS a minor and interesting quote for you... 'Although the adherents of today's Reformed Faith profess to be following in the footsteps of those who rejected Romanism, I believe that many of them have repeated one of the very foundational errors of Romanism. That is, the belief that the testimony of the historic professing church is the definer of scriptural truth.' Stuart Dinenno