Earlier this week we began a new series on sola Scriptura. Part one brought us the story of Martin Luther and how he refused to renounce the Scriptures at the Diet of Worms and how the issue of the Bible alone ultimately proved to be the formal principle of the Reformation. Furthermore, it was shown how Christ is the single great theme of the Bible and unifies all the Scriptures, and as such, it would be proper to read the Bible as a whole. Part two addressed the importance of embracing the authority of God's Word because of its nature. Today's portion continues from where we left off from the sermon delivered in Nigeria earlier this month as part of a conference on the truths of the Reformation.

***********

I know that good people disagree on certain religious issues, but if we simply opened the Bible and properly examined God's Word then it might save on a lot of discussion. Some years ago while pastoring in a small town in Pennsylvania I had the occasion to visit with a lady who had become the pastor of a Lutheran church. In the course of the conversation I asked her a question. My desire was not to embarrass her, but I wanted to understand how she could justify being ordained and serving as the pastor of a local church. In particular I asked her by what scriptural authority she had stepped into that role of eldership for when we open the Bible we read very plainly the words of 1 Timothy 3:1. "This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work." God has spoken.

The Reformers said that all of our Christian practice should be rooted in Scripture by principle or by precept and I believe that with all my heart. The Reformers also said that our faith should be rooted only in Scripture.

I recently encountered a person who embraces Pre-tribulation, Pre-millennial, Dispensational theology. It took only a matter of minutes before I was being told with breathless excitement that the world was coming to an end for all the signs of the time were present. When I offered the suggestion that perhaps we should prepare to die but live with the blessed hope of the Lord’s return there was an immediate emotional outrage. "No, no. We are living in the last days and Jesus is coming soon!"

Neither did it help the matter when I ventured the opinion that many major concepts of the Dispensational view that are now being articulated and embraced are not part of the historic Christian faith. The idea of a revived Roman Empire, a secret seven year rapture, a future tribulation period with the rise of an Antichrist who will bring peace to the world, a third Temple, three comings of Christ, a twofold division between Israel and the church, the removal of the Holy Spirit and much more are not found in the debates of the great church councils nor are they found in the creeds of Christendom.

"But it is all in the Bible," came the protest. "Where I asked?" Give me a chapter and verse. That cannot be done. Select Scriptures can only be alluded to, ripped out of context or misinterpreted to fit the teaching of the system.

A case in point. I mentioned the opening words of Revelation state that John was going to see things that must "shortly" come to pass--and two thousand years later is not a good understanding of "shortly". Revelation 1:1 reads, "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John." This person retorted that, "one day with the Lord is like a thousand years,"--an appeal to 2 Peter 3:8. The problem with such implausable argumentation, however, is that Peter's point is to assert that God is sovereign over everything, including time, and that His perspective is radically different from ours. Any attempt to change "day" or "shortly" into "thousands of years" is simply applying eisegesis to a passage.

"But so and so believes this!" was the next argument. My response. "I am more interested in what Jesus said and what the apostle Paul believes as set forth in  Scripture." It is nice when prominent spiritual leaders agree with one's position, but it is better when all agree with God’s Word. Truth is truth. The biblical text has meaning. When I suggested that the person has been taught a system of theology instead of the Scriptures the idea was immediately rejected with great emotion. The information was not welcomed when I mentioned there is evidence for a historical fulfillment of Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21, which teaches a time of great tribulation for Israel and which history says happened between AD 66-70.

I then made an offer in order to induce personal Bible study minus the teachings of the Dispensation System being super imposed on the thinking process so that people think they see what is NOT in the Bible. "I will give you a financial remuneration if you can find one clear teaching setting forth the Rapture of the church. Just one clear verse. I will give you another financial remuneration if you will provide one clear teaching that the church is going to disappear and there will be a seven year tribulation period."

Even that generous offer was emotionally dismissed. The mind was made up. "You will have to give me more money than that!" was the response. There was just no willingness to look at any historical or theological evidence that might challenge what had been embraced. Such a position is a violation of the Reformation principle of Sola Scriptura for all matters of faith and practice.

Charles Spurgeon said, "I will follow the Scripture wherever it may lead me, and I will renounce the most cherished opinion, rather than shape or alter a single syllable of God's Book. It is not mine to make God's Word consistent, but to believe that it is so. When a text stands in the road I drive no further. The Romans had a god they called Terminus, the god of landmarks. Holy Scripture is my sacred landmark: woe is me if I remove it."

to be continued...