Every serious Christian wrestles with thorny doctrinal questions that demand answers. What is the truth? Eternal security or falling away? Sovereignty or free will? Cessationism or non-cessationism? Pretrib or post-trib? There are dozens of questions that demand our time and tax our brains. How do we answer these doctrinal conundrums?
Obviously, the correct answer is sola scriptura—the Bible is the ONLY rule of faith and practice since the close of the canon of Scripture in the time of the apostles. The spiritual man searches this book for answers to his doctrinal questions. And he tests potential answers by it. He understands that the word of God gives us the mind of God on every one of these doctrinal questions that we face.
But we find a problem here. Despite the fact that the entire conservative evangelical camp professes to believe in sola scriptura—the Bible as the only rule of faith and practice, yet their performance frequently falls short of their profession. Dozens of errors saddle the church. Why is this? It is not due to lack of study, lack of theological education, or lack of brain power. Those at the forefront of teaching error have all of these in spades.
Then why do men fail in their efforts to ascertain the truth of God? Because they don’t see themselves as readily susceptible to false teaching. This leaves them vulnerable to the errors of their own circle if not the passionately taught errors that seem to be the rage of the day. Because they don’t see their need, they don’t proactively and fearfully search for and implement the steps necessary to ensure that their efforts to be molded by the mind of God in the word of God won’t be derailed by slickly taught error.
So what steps do we need to take to make sure that we wind up with the mind of God and not the mind of man when we search the Bible for answers to doctrinal questions? Here are five hard-learned principles which are vital to this process. To the degree that we implement them, to that degree our investigations will lead to the answers that God intended for us to find in the word of God. To the degree that we fail to implement them, to that degree our investigations will lead us to positions that are highly esteemed among men, but contrary to the plain teachings of the Bible.
The first is obtaining a single eye. Determine that you want to learn and embrace the plain teaching of the Bible on thorny doctrinal questions regardless of who approves or disapproves. That you want God’s approval at the judgment seat of Christ no matter what it costs you down here. Even if it brings disfavor with those whose favor you covet the most. When men cave in to the desire to be approved or esteemed by any group of men, it skews their judgment, causing them to embrace positions that a single eye would have never embraced. The desire for approval works its foul magic in every doctrinal controversy that roils the church. You can’t help desiring the approbation of men, especially good men. But you can make a conscious determination that you will regard God’s approbation in the matter as something of vastly more value.
The second is ruthlessly following literal interpretation. Determine that you won’t give in to the temptation to allegorize and spiritualize scripture no matter how tantalizing it looks. Determine that you will consistently follow literal interpretation. So what is the difference between the systems? Very simple. Literal interpretation takes everything literal except when the literal sense is either impossible or nonsensical. For instance, when we read that Jesus is the Lamb of God, we know that lamb here must be figurative because Jesus can’t be and isn’t a literal lamb. Pressing a literal sense in this situation makes nonsense. Allegorical interpretation takes things figuratively which make perfectly good sense literally. For instance, the theory that the two witnesses represent the church—seen as priests and kings—is a non-starter. The two witnesses can easily be taken literally—as two human beings, whether they be Moses and Elijah or Enoch and Elijah.
The third is seeking the simplest solution that answers all of the biblical data. This principle is also known as Occam’s razor or the elegant solution. A simplistic solution that ignores some of the biblical material may be simpler, but it can’t be right. We are not looking for the simplest solution to doctrinal questions. We are looking for the simplest solution that harmonizes all of the biblical data. Sometimes men go the other direction and favor more complex solutions because they are racy or exotic. Again, we need to set aside our penchant for exciting solutions and stick with the simplest solution that answers all the data, even if it seems plain vanilla or boring. The flat earth theory works both sides of this equation. It appears simpler on the surface to many. It definitely appears exotic. And the math is more complicated than the math for a round earth orbiting around a round sun.
The fourth is avoiding false dichotomies. None of the major doctrinal errors that roil the church could exist without a false dichotomy which forces the believer to choose between the lesser of two evils. For instance, free will or the sovereignty of God. False dichotomies introduce tension into doctrinal questions where no tension exists in the Bible, and force men to embrace one side or the other. These dichotomies guarantee that men will hold error. But there is zero tension between sovereignty and free will if you have a biblical understanding of both. You don’t have to choose between the pile of sovereignty scriptures and the pile of free will scriptures. If you sense tension between the two sides of this controversy, you can rest assured that you hold error somewhere, maybe on both sides. And there is no deliverance from this error unless and until you can give a hearty amen to every sovereignty passage and every free will passage and throw them together in one common pile—the moral government pile. Then you are on your way to discerning the biblical solution that harmonizes the passages in both categories.
The fifth is only allowing biblical observations as arguments. On many controversial points, major and minor, men frame arguments that sound plausible and reasonable, yet these arguments are not observations based on what the Bible says. They are merely speculations and assumptions that seem reasonable. This is a mistake. We want biblical theology, not theological theology. Men do themselves a tremendous service if they determine to frame their doctrine from the plain statements of Scripture alone and to never let the Bible’s straightforward testimony be overridden by philosophical speculations, no matter how long and how passionately revered. Many of the controversies that roil the church could be resolved with this point alone were men consistent with it. A corollary to this point is when men exalt mere assertions on technical or historical considerations against grammatical, lexical, textual, and historical facts that can be easily demonstrated. This is like favoring fairy tales over reality.
May the Lord bless you in your endeavors to be more a student of what God’s word says and less a student of what men, even good men, insist that the word of God teaches. This is THE great challenge that lies behind ALL of the doctrinal challenges that you face. Always bear in mind that when you stand before the Lord to give account for your understanding of His word, you will be judged by His word, not by creeds or confessions, not by theological systems, not by Baptist doctrine, Reformed doctrine, Pentecostal doctrine, or Brethren doctrine. Simply the word of God alone. This is earth shattering in its simplicity. If we are going to be judged by it alone, then perhaps we should judge by it alone.
Eyes wide open, brain engaged, heart on fire,
Lee W. Brainard
For more on the proper interpretation of the Bible see The Abuse of Context.
No Comments