Archive for sola scriptura
T.W. Medhurst — Is Romanism Christianity?
(from The Fundamentals, 1909-1917)
The canons of the Council of Trent, which sat at intervals from 1545 to 1563, may be called the Bible of Romanism. They were translated into English, as late as 1848, by a Roman Catholic, priest, under the sanction of Dr. Wiseman. The Council tells us that one end for which it was called was “the extirpation of heresies.” What, then, according to it, is the standard of truth? It tells us that Rome receives The Sacred Scriptures and “The Unwritten Traditions…..preserved in continuous succession in the Catholic Church, with equal affection of piety and reverence” (Session 4) ; also that “no one may dare to interpret the Sacred Scriptures” in a manner contrary to that “Church; whose it is to judge respecting the true sense and interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures;” nor may any one interpret them “in a manner contrary to the unanimous consent of the fathers” (Session 4).
Christ commands us to “prove all things” (1 Thess. 5: 21) to “search the Scriptures” (John 5: 39) ; to ascertain for ourselves, as the Bereans did, whether what we hear agrees with what we read in Scripture (Acts 17: 11). He commands us to “hold fast the form of sound words,” uttered by Himself and His Apostles (2 Tim. 1: 13) ; to “contend earnestly for the faith delivered once for all to the saints” (Jude 3). But Rome says, “Let no one dare to do so – let all “Christian princes….. cause [men] to observe” our decrees (Session 16), nor “permit” them to be “violated by heretics” (Session 25).
The Romanist must not dare to have an opinion of his own; his mind must exist in the state of utter prostration and bondage; he must not attempt to understand the Scripture himself. And if others attempt it — if they dare to receive the teaching and do the will of Christ, instead of receiving fictions and obeying commands of men, which wholly subvert and destroy the truth and will of Jesus, Rome commands the civil ruler to restrain them; and, by the use of fines, imprisonment, and death, to compel them, if possible, to renounce what God requires them to maintain and follow, even unto death.
The Bible, the whole Bible, nothing but the Bible, is the standard and the rule of Christianity. To know its meaning for ourselves, to receive its teaching, to rely on its promises, to trust in its Redeemer, to obey Him from delight of love, and to refuse to follow other teaching, is Christianity itself. But Romanism denies all this; and therefore, Romanism is not Christianity.
Rev. E.W. Bullinger, D.D.– The One Great Object Of The Word
(from How To Enjoy The Bible, 1907)
The first great and essential principle which must be ever present with us, when we study the Word of God, as a whole, is not to treat it as something which we have to interpret, but as being that which God has given in order to interpret Himself and His will to us.
i. This applies to Christ; as the Living Word.
When we speak of the “Word” we can never separate the Living Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; and the written word, the Scriptures of Truth.
Each of these is called the “Word,” because the Greek word Logos is used of both.
Logos means the spoken or written word, because it makes manifest, and reveals to us the invisible thoughts.
It is used of Christ, the Living Word, because He reveals the invisible God. “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, He being in the bosom of the Father, This one [hath] declared [Him]” (John 1:18).
It is not that we have to explain Christ, but that His mission is to explain God to us. He interprets the Father. And we have to believe Him.
The word “declare” in John 1:18 is important in this connection, and deeply interesting. It is from ek (ek), out of, or forth, and hgeomai (hegeomai), to lead. Hence the whole compound verb means to lead forth, to make known, to guide, interpret, unfold, reveal, and expound (Luke 24:35).* It is from this verb that we have the cognate noun Exegesis which means Exposition. Wycliffe renders it “He hath told out.” The best Meaning is to make known.
* The word occurs only in Luke 24:35; John 1:18; Acts 10:8, 15:12,14, 21:19.
This is why Christ is called “The Word of God,” because He makes known, reveals, and explains the Father.
This is why the Scriptures are called “the Word of God,” because they make known the Father and the Son, by the Holy Spirit, the author of the Word.
Christ is “the Way” to the Father (John 14). He makes God known to us in all His attributes, will, and words. “I have given them Thy Word.” It is always “THY Word” (John 17:8,14,17).
ii. In like manner the Written Word, the Scripture, is given in order to interpret, and to testify of Christ; and this is why (as we shall see as our next essential principle) Christ is the one great subject of the Word.
This is why the Holy Spirit is the interpreter of both. His mission is to glorify Christ (John 16:14). He receives and shows the “things of Christ” (John 14:15). But He shows them in the Written Word (1 Cor 2:9-14). And this is why it must be He and He alone who enables us to preach that Word.
Thus we have the Word in three manifestations:—
The Incarnate Word,
The Written Word,
The Preached Word.
There is no other. Christ reveals the Father. The Scripture reveals Christ. The Spirit reveals both in the written and in the preached Word (1 Cor 12:7,8).
How wonderfully does this magnify the preached Word; and show the solemnity of the charge in 2 Timothy 4:2, “Preach the Word.”
It shows how small and worthless are all the schemes, tricks and contrivances of present-day evangelists and mission preachers with their ever-new fashions and modern methods, when we see what a high and dignified place God has given to the Preached Word.
How careful should we be that nothing in our manner or matter should lower that dignity, or imply in the slightest degree that the Written Word has lost any of its power; or needs any handmaids or helpmeets.
“I HAVE GIVEN THEM THY WORD“
is the all-sufficient assurance of the Lord Jesus Christ, speaking to the Father. He did not say I have given them Aids to devotion. He did not say I have given them a Hymn-book, or I have given them thy Word AND something else.
He did not give anything instead of, or in addition to, that Word.
And that being so, we are assured that the Word which He gave is all-sufficient, in itself, to accomplish all the purposes of God.
The Word Alone Is Sufficient!
[Note: The following is a response to comments generated by an article entitled "Why I Appeal To Historic Christianity," in which Roderick Edwards implies that Scripture should be read in light of church history. Respondents to his post include Dr. Kenneth Talbot (president of Whitefield Seminary) and a gentleman named "Lem." The original article appeared at Dee Dee Warren's Preterist Blog. ]
Rod/Lem/Dr. Talbot,
Well, this is a very interesting discussion. Hope no one minds if I chip in my “two cents.” Without taking sides, I would have to say that the balance of truth lies in the revealed Word of God, rather than in ecclesiastical history. This isn’t to say that all history should be discounted. I enjoy reading early church fathers such as Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Lactantius. But when it comes to establishing the truth of any position, I must acknowledge the final touchstone to be the written Word.
Let me explain myself. I believe that “sovereign” is an attribute of God. But can any of God’s attributes be separated? Let us consider as many as our human limitations allow. God is not only SOVEREIGN, but He is FAITHFUL and TRUE. Because He is faithful, His providential care of His own is beyond question. That goes hand in hand with His sovereignty.
My presupposition (if I have any) is that God has left us His word, not to confound us, but to instruct us. He has also made promises that cannot be BROKEN without impugning His faithfulness. I am talking about the promises God made to Israel. Those promises will stand, no matter what man says.
But most importantly, God’s providence is manifested in the written Word, where He has given us all we need for our spiritual growth and nourishment. If in any respect the Word is insufficient to serve as supreme arbiter in all doctrinal controversies, then God’s faithfulness is placed in question. It would mean that He hasn’t given us enough. This presupposition leads to a “holy mother church” attitude which jacks the ‘visible church’ into apotheosis, while downplaying the true church, which is the body of Christ, the pleroma of Him that filleth all in all (Eph. 1: 23).
Frankly, I don’t believe in a “church militant.” The church is an organism — not an organization. Until we realize this monumental fact, we will fail to gain a proper apprehension of what Matthew 16: 18 means. The reason the gates of hell will not prevail against Christ’s church is because the church is seated with Christ in heavenly places, far above all principality and power. Satan’s authority is in the air. Hence believers in Christ are seated above Satan! This denotes their PERFECT STANDING in Christ. It has nothing to do with membership in a visible organization or “club” — be it Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Baptist, or what have you. It means being spiritually baptized into the body of Christ.
Paul’s prayer is that the knowledge of the saints will increase more and more (see Eph. 1: 17-18). He nowhere implies that anyone is vouchsafed “perfect gnosis.” Man may often err in respect to what they believe the Bible teaches. But the center of authority is not what man may think, but what God has revealed. Throughout the centuries, the issue has always been:
“God hath spoken. Will man listen?”
This is the one great question. I don’t believe that God has controlled the thoughts of His saints for 2,000 years. (He no more controls our thoughts than He controls our acts). He has left us His word. As the Jews had Moses and the prophets, so we have the 66 books. Since the close of the Jewish economy, the church (as a visible institution) has been largely self-regulating. In the absence of inspired apostles, we are left with the inspired Word. Once again, this bespeaks God’s providence. True, the visible church has often erred in matters of doctrine. But we fix these errors by going back to the fountain of all truth, which is the Word of God. There is the single supreme and authoritative touchstone by which all doctrines must be tested.
I believe God has given us the “talent” of saving faith (through the work of regeneration) but that growth in knowledge of His word must be by patient application and study, not to mention the spiritual illumination that the Holy Spirit gives. To me, illumination does not mean “ability to unlock riddles,” so much as the power to believe what God has revealed. When we receive His testimony, we set to our seal that God is true (John 3: 33). When we refuse to believe, we make Him a liar.
The reason Hyper-Preterism is wrong, is not because the fathers never taught it, but because it is frankly UNSCRIPTURAL. It sets aside the revealed theology of the New Testament, and substitutes for it the vain imaginations and philosophies of men. Although the creedo-historical argument may seem a powerful weapon at first, the Word will always be sufficient. In no case should evangelical Christians discount its authority. The Word of God is the only offensive weaponry God gives us! All the other equipment we need for spiritual warfare is defensive. See Ephesians 6: 13-17. This should tell us something.
So, in assessing these posts, my conclusion is that while church history is a wonderful help, the Word of God is still supreme. Man’s duty is not so much to “interpret” what God has written for our learning, but to BELIEVE all that He has revealed. Failure to believe God is the root cause of all the doctrinal division among Christians — past, present, or future.
Pax,
Brian
Tribute To E.W. Bullinger
As part of my self-imposed summer reading program, I’ve been leafing through the revised and expanded edition of Juanita S. Carey’s book entitled “E.W. Bullinger: A Biography.” This book is one of the most thoughtful and well-written biographies I’ve read to date, as it showcases the life and learning of one of the foremost names in Dispensational theology.
Ethelbert W. Bullinger was born in 1837 in Canterbury, England. He was the direct descendant of Heinrich Bullinger (1504-1575) the Swiss Reformer – one whom Dr. Mal Couch credits as the co-founder (with Johannes Cocceius) of “Covenant Theology.”
Although E.W. Bullinger was a Dispensationalist for most of his life, he started out in the Anglican church as a covenant theologian. Though he was very familiar with the history of organized Christendom, he never let tradition mold his views of doctrine, but, like his Reformed predecessors, plodded steadily forward, amending his views as he advanced in doctrine, and writing books that are today considered masterpieces of theological acumen.
His first major work appeared in 1877, and is titled “A Critical Lexicon and Concordance To The English and Greek New Testament.” For this work he received a Lambeth doctorate of divinity at the recommendation of the Archbishop of Canterbury. On Sept. 9, 1881, Queen Victoria of England issued a proclamation affirming Bullinger’s doctorate, after he had taken an oath of allegiance to the Monarch and the Thirty-Nine Articles of the church of England.
From this time forward, Dr. Bullinger’s literary productions began to flow from his pen. Not only was Bullinger fully acquainted with the Biblical languages, but his incisive scholarship allowed him to advance upon doctrines developed during the Reformation.
One of Bullinger’s fields of expertise was the literary analysis of the Scriptures. To gain the true meaning of any passage, he affirmed, it is necessary to first determine the scope of the passage. The scope can only be learned from examining the literary structure. Of course, most readers do not know anything about literary structures. And so Bullinger made it his life’s work to teach these principles more clearly. Detailed structures of every passage in Scripture are provided in his magum opus, “The Companion Bible” (available from Kregel Books).
Bullinger was a staunch Dispensationalist. But his form of Dispensationalism is not that of C.I. Scofield or Clarence Larkin. Bullinger, contrary to popular and traditional belief, affirmed that the church of the “One Body” did not actually begin until after Acts 28. Interestingly, this doctrine was one that developed over time, and reached full fruition in a series of articles written during 1911-1913, and published in the periodical “Things to Come.” The articles were later published in book form as “The Lord Hath Spoken: Foundations of Dispensational Truth.”
While not its original purpose, this book really serves as systematic refutation of Preterist theology. Dr. Bullinger was familiar with the arguments put forward by Preterists, and after studying their system he discovered that they had some valid points. Yet after further study, he concluded that they were wrong in placing Christ’s parousia in A.D. 70, as the hope of Israel had already been set aside in Acts 28, and a new parenthetical Dispensation inaugurated. The parousia, once imminent during the Acts period, now lies on the other side of this present Dispensation.
Bullinger’s theology was not a fanciful concoction, but based on painstaking literary analysis of the New Testament. The doctor’s successor, Charles H. Welch, developed and refined his prophetic approach, the results of his studies being later published (in systematic form) in his flagship book “Dispensational Truth” (1912).
While few follow the Bullinger/Welch system today, there are many scholars who have been influenced by, and come under the spell of, Bullinger’s method. During his lifetime, the doctor received a great deal of criticism from colleagues and rivals. However, he did not let this stop him from following in the footsteps of his forebear Heinrich Bullinger, and attempting to construct a cohesive system of Bible-prophecy and eschatology for the edification of the church.
In one of his last books, Dr. Bullinger wrote:
“Alas that so many who call themselves Protestants today are witnesses only against error, and not for truth. They are “Anti-Romanists” instead of witnesses FOR the Word of God which Rome at once both hates and fears. If this lesson could be written in our hearts, we should soon render more effective service. We should not merely be opposed to the varied and outward forms which Rome’s errors take; but we should understand, and be able to witness for the truth which those errors have displaced, and the doctrines of the Word of God which must replace the traditions of men” (Great Cloud of Witnesses, pg. 337).
Like Moses and the prophets in their day, Bullinger bore witness to a perverse and rebellious generation in his own — a generation tainted by rationalism, skepticism, and higher criticism. It is to his credit that he unflinchingly defended the Bible against the attacks of liberals and free-thinkers, allegorists and spiritualizers. Speaking of the binding of Satan during the Millennium, Bullinger wrote:
“We are asked, with a triumphant air: ‘Do you really believe Satan will be bound with an iron chain?’ Our answer is, that there is not a word said about an ‘iron chain!’ Our imagination and knowlegde are so limited, that when God says ‘a great chain,’ we can think only of an ‘iron’ chain, because the chains that we know of are mostly iron. But we are having great and wonderful facts and realities revealed to us here; and it behoves us to believe, where we cannot understand. [...]
”We believe that the war is literal; the taking of the beast and false prophet is literal; Satan is literal, and his binding is literal. [...] There are such things as Figures of Speech; but this not one, nor is it what commentators call ‘figurative language,’ that cannot bind anyone, except themselves and others, to their false system of interpretation.” (The Apocalypse, pg. 609-610).
Despite how others may view him, E.W. Bullinger was a Reformer who raised Dispensationalism to an academic level which it has never before (or since) enjoyed. His love for the pure Word of God, unsoiled by human traditions, and his unrelenting stance on the literal fulfillment of prophecy, and the defense of Israel’s future hope, has made him a target for the arrows of misguided saints, as well as infidels. But the doctrines for which he fought still stand as firm as ever.
Exemplifying his love for the Bible is one of Dr. Bullinger’s last remarks, made on his deathbed to a visiting nurse. When asked by him if she had read any of his books, she replied: “No, I never read any religious books.” Although weak and failing, Dr. Bullinger, roused by these words, replied:
“I never write religious books. Religion may mean anything. What you and I want is not religion, but Christianity. CHRIST.”
It is from adherence to the principles laid down by Dr. Bullinger that this blog exists. Therefore, the very least we can do is give tribute (however small) to a Christian saint whose writings have done perhaps more to reform prophecy and eschatology than anyone else in the history of the church. As a Dispensationalist, it is my privilege to be able to follow in the footsteps Dr. E.W. Bullinger.
The Great Sola Scriptura Challenge
Hyper-Preterists have long been known for their piracy of the term “Sola Scriptura,” and their abuse of anyone who refers to 2,000 years of church history. As an evangelical Protestant, I believe Scripture is sufficient for determining all matters of doctrine and practice. However, church history is also important, as it bears witness to how Christians in past ages understood the word of God.
Nevertheless, church history is not necessary in order to prove Hyper-Preterism wrong. It is my position that the Scriptures alone are sufficient. And it is to bolster this claim that the following message goes forth:
THE GREAT SOLA SCRIPTURA CHALLENGE
I hereby issue a blanket challenge to any Hyper-Preterist who would like to publicly debate me on the doctrines of Hyper-Preterism. I have only three general conditions:
1): The debate will be conducted & recorded in an audio (and not written) format.
2): The debate will be moderated by an impartial third party.
3): Arguments will be based on Scripture alone, without reference to extra-Biblical sources.
If Hyper-Preterists feel themselves equal to my challenge, I urge them or their “seconds” to contact me at the email address below, that arrangements can be made. As for the particular topic of debate, I am open to suggestions. Therefore, interested parties may consider the subject matter negotiable.
The reason why I am issuing this challenge, is because Hyper-Preterists have too long swaggered about, claiming they are the true knights of Sola Scriptura; whereas my position is, that without help from human, fallible, non-Biblical sources, Hyper-Preterist theology cannot be sustained.
With these thoughts in mind, then, I formally throw down the gauntlet to the Hyper-Preterist community. Let us see if anyone is willing to take it up.
*******************
Contact info: bsimmons@basicisp.net
A Matter Of Interpretation
Hyper-Preterists commonly claim that their views are based on the Scriptures alone. And we might reply: “So is everyone else’s.” To merely claim “Sola Scriptura” proves nothing, inasmuch as interpretations differ wildly among Christians, even orthodox ones. A view that is merely “based upon” Scripture does not necessarily make it correct.
The question may eventually boil down to whose interpretation we follow. On this Christians differ as well. Some say we must throw aside 2,000 years of Christian teaching for some vain novelty. Others say we must go back to “mother church” and select from Tradition A or Tradition B.
There is a third option, however. We need do neither if we accept God’s own interpretation of His word. In order to claim this position, though, we must approach Scriptures according to a “grammatical, contextual, and historic” method. Otherwise, we’ll risk substituting God’s thoughts with our own.
If the Bible was written to be understood, then we shouldn’t have much trouble deciding what God said regarding any given subject. The trouble comes when Christians assume just the opposite, starting from the premise that God wished to mystify His church.
True, Christ sometimes spoke in parables. But He did so to conceal truth from the unbelieving populace — not from His disciples. Christ said: “It is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 13: 12).
Again, we read: “And when they were alone, He expounded all things to His disciples” (Mark 4: 34). It is evident that Christ wished to make doctrine clearer to those who followed Him. And though at times their unbelieving hearts prevented them from gauging the entire truth, Christ could truthfully say: “O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!” (Luke 24: 25). The confusion came from man’s end, and not from the intent of God.
The apostles followed Christ’s example of making known the counsels of God. And although Paul taught some things “hard to be understood” (2 Peter 3: 16) it was never his intention to conceal mysteries. To the Corinthians he wrote: “Seeing then that we have this ministry, we use great plainness of speech” (2 Cor. 3: 12). And to the Colossians: “That I might make it manifest, as I ought to speak” (Col. 4: 4).
There is no question, then, that the Scriptures were intended to be understood. If Timothy could understand the Scriptures when he was a little child (2 Tim. 3: 15), then how much more should we be able to know what God has revealed on any given matter?
Our interpretations of Sacred text will tell where we stand in this regard. Because of diverse and conflicting interpretations, the only ones who will emerge as winners from the exegetical battleground are those who take the Scriptures according to their plain and natural sense — unless context indicates otherwise.
It is those who spiritualize the Scriptures without any exegetical warrant that do the most harm to God’s word. We do not deny, of course, that the Bible contains figures of speech, and sometimes symbolical language. However, figures of speech can always be identified; and symbols are generally explained to us.
At any rate, God does not leave us in doubt as to whether we are dealing with literal or non-literal language. If the context can’t make it clear, then nothing will.
The starting premise of Biblical hermeneutics is that God has chosen to communicate to us through His word. Any interpretations which take for granted that the Bible is some esoteric riddle-book only comprehensible to an elite few, will be found mutually self-destructive. Why? Because when one assumes as a basic premise that God has elected to keep His truths a secret, then the Bible can be made to mean anything a person wants it to mean. All objectivity is thrown out the window.
This is exemplified by the large number of “spiritualizing” commentaries available on the market, which purport to be the truth. These books run the gamut from Preterism to Futurism; from traditionalistic claptrap to the latest in emergent fashions. But they all have one thing in common. They refuse to take God at His own word.
In my view, such interpreters are as bad as the popes of olden time who would have the Scriptures kept under lock and key. Today priests no longer prevent men from getting at the Word of God. Instead they muddle the Scriptures with their false interpretations. They ask us to accept these interpretations as genuine. Our answer is: We shall accept the interpretation of God Himself, who would have us understand His Bible according to the plain and natural sense, unless context indicates a figurative, symbolical, or allegorical usage.
We are aware of the various arguments, of course. However, when all is said by all parties, we still prefer to believe God over man. We find a literal interpretation of the Sacred text far more credible than the dozens (and often hundreds) of conflicting interpretations put forward by those allegorists whose number is Legion.
If we should be mistaken in this department, we prefer to err through simplicity. No Christian can go far astray in believing God said what He meant, and meant what He said.
For this reason, I endorse a “grammatical, historical, and contextual” mode of Bible study. Strictly speaking, it requires no “interpretation” at all, for it takes God’s words according to the natural sense, not forcing them to fit any preconceived paradigm. I believe such a method is the bulwark of Protestantism, and the foremost weapon against all forms of infidelity.
Only by returning to the fountainhead of all truth — the Scriptures themselves — will we be able to combat false doctrine when it confronts us. But unless the Scriptures can be understood, then it doesn’t matter what they say, for it is probable that we’ll never get it. In that case, what good will arguing do?
However, if we believe that God’s word is an open book, and contains a clear presentation of all we need to know for our edification, enlightenment, and spiritual nourishment, then may we gladly say with the Psalmist: “I rejoice at Thy word, as one that findeth great spoil” (Psa. 119: 162).
What Wright Represents
To those who read this blog, it may come as a surprise to hear that I used to be a Roman Catholic. I’m not kidding. I was sprinkled as an infant. I attended “mass” in my formative years. For the greater part of my life I belonged to ”holy mother church.” However, due to my unregenerate nature, I seldom attended.
It wasn’t until I was 29 years old that I was truly regenerated by the grace of God. Then the first thing I wanted to do was experience true Christian fellowship. So after briefly attending a Pentecostal church, I moved to an Independent Fundamental Baptist congregation. I was soon baptized by immersion, and joined the church.
Those were some of the best services I ever attended, because the preaching was heartfelt. What a difference between those services and the superstitious ceremonialism to which I had been accustomed my entire life.
In time I began to live the Pauline doctrine, in which the Christian is pictured as buried with Christ, and risen through faith of the operation of God (Col. 2: 12); seated in heavenly places with Christ (Eph. 2: 6), and free from the bondage of ordinances (Col. 2: 20-23). Because of my new spiritual life I saw the importance between a worship in Spirit and truth and one based on “weak and beggarly elements.”
But the most important difference, I think, was the fact that in my church the Word of God was deemed essential in all points; whereas the Roman Catholics relied heavily, if not exclusively, on tradition in order to bolster their views. Having once drunk in the pure waters of the written Word, I had no desire to turn back to the obfuscations of Rome.
Of course, I went off on a tangent when I briefly accepted the false doctrines of Hyper-Preterism. But that was only because I had left the “grammatical, contextual, historical” interpretative method behind, and succumbed to the teachings of Gnostic commentators who, like alchemists, make Scripture mean whatever they want.
In returning to the truth, I eventually saw that the interpretive principles espoused by Protestants demand perspicuity of the word and clear exegesis. This is the foundation on which our faith must be built. If man is allowed to inject his literary concepts into the Word, then we may as well throw our Bibles away.
In recent years, however, there has arisen a class of men who, claiming to be Protestant, would yet drag us back into the dark ages of Romanism with their shibboleths and dark sentences. Some of these men hold high positions in the established church. A great majority deny the doctrine of Christ’s second advent, or dilute its significance by claiming that when Christ spoke of His “return,” He was really talking about the destruction of an earthly building.
These false prophets of Christendom are steadfastly against the sufficiency of Scripture alone to determine matters of doctrine. N.T. Wright (pictured at top left) is one of these individuals, who claims that Matthew 31: 31-46 was fulfilled at the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Wright is Anglican bishop of Durham, whose books are lauded by those who accept his concept of Christianity.
Wright’s teachings on eschatology are also admired by Hyper-Preterists, inasmuch as he relegates much of what Christians consider “end time” phenomena to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Despite the fact that such teachings have been repeatedly invalidated by conservative Bible scholars, Wright’s following has swelled considerably in recent years.
Like Romanists in general, Wright places an undue emphasis on the visible church, and on ecclesiastical authority, while he butchers the Scriptures in an attempt to put off Christ’s second coming, so that “holy mother church” can take over the world. Obviously, Scripture has to mean what Wright wants it to mean, aside from the customary laws of grammar and rhetoric.
Evidently what Wright and his followers wish to reverse is the massive progress made in hermeneutics during the past two hundred years. I am talking about the “historical, grammatical, contextual” mode of interpretation. The system of reading the Scriptures according to the natural sense, without the aid of special “interpreters“ or benches of bishops, is despised by men of Wright’s stamp.
As I watch Wright’s maneuvers in the evangelical world, I can’t help but think the old battle between priestcraft and pure Christianity is on once more. The priest would hold the key of knowledge above the heads of the people. Whereas evangelical Christianity says just the opposite, affirming that the Scriptures are a revelation from God, which must be believed and received by faith.
In his article “Farewell to The Rapture,” Wright demonstrates his unwillingness to believe the Word of God. Speaking of 1 Thess. 4: 16-17, he makes reference to “Paul’s misunderstood metaphors,” and claims that the description of the catching away of the saints is not to be understood according to the literal sense. In Wright’s view, that is a “distortion.”
Now, among evangelicals there is quite a deal of debate concerning the rapture. However, the debate has always involved matters of timing, and not the reality of the doctrine itself. People who read their Bibles don’t need to be told that Paul’s epistolary communications were written to make matters of Christian doctrine clear, and not to conceal mysteries. However, Wright would us accept these writings (and 1 Thessalonians in particular) as a riddle which only the priests can unravel.
I would be interested to know where Wright gets the idea that Paul is using metaphorical language. Metaphors can always be identified. Concerning this figure of speech, E.W. Bullinger writes:
“Let it be clearly understood that a Metaphor is confined to a distinct affirmation that one thing IS another thing, owing to some association or connection in the uses or effects of anything expressed or understood. The two nouns themselves must both be mentioned, and are always to be taken in their absolutely literal sense, or else no one can tell what they mean. The figure lies wholly in the verb, or copula, which in English must always be expressed, and never understood by Ellipsis.
“For example, ‘All flesh is grass.’ Here ‘flesh‘ is to be taken literally as the subject spoken of, and ‘grass‘ is to be taken equally literally as that which represents ‘flesh.’ All the figure lies in the verb ‘IS.’ The statement is made under strong feeling, the mind realizing some point of association; but instead of using the more measured verb ‘resembles,’ or ‘is like‘; which would be truer to fact, though not so true to feeling; the verb ‘is‘ is used, and the meaning of one thing is carried across and transferred to the other. It is not, as some might think, a mere Hebrew idiom to use “is” for “represents;” but it is a necessity of language arising from the actual condition and character of the human mind.” (Figures of Speech, pg. 735-736).
Bullinger goes on to give several examples of metaphorical usage. But none of these examples fit Paul’s language in 1 Thess. 4. In fact, after a detailed examination of the passage in question, I’ve concluded that it does not contain a single metaphor. What, then, can Wright be talking about? It is evident that what the bishop really meant is that Paul’s language is “symbolical.” However, there is nothing in the context which gives us any indication of a symbolical usage.
No. The worthy prelate is wrong. Paul was revealing facts for the edification of those to whom he wrote. His words are to be understood according to their plain and natural sense.
It is strange that one who would find symbolical elements in Paul’s epistolary writings should fail to properly understand the typical significance of those rites and ordinances of the Mosaic law, which are done away in Christ. Wright’s religion stands in quite as much ceremonialism as the Catholic church. But a good Protestant would respond that the ordinances are only ”symbolic” of spiritual truths, and should not be played out literally! You see, Wright’s doctrine and practice are not matching up.
What does Wright represent? Obviously, his mode of interpretation justifies priestcraft. It presupposes the insufficiency of the believer to come to Christ, and Him alone, and to be led and guided by the Scriptures, without submitting to the traditions of the elders. Instead of insisting (as we do) that Christians accept God’s interpretation of His own Word, Wright suggests that we follow his interpretation, which justifies the perpetuity of an elite priesthood.
Because Wright stands for what a large portion of Christianity today advocates, I urge readers once more to stand fast in that liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and to be not entanged again with the yoke of bondage (Gal. 5: 1). In short, may God deliver us from all harlotry – whether it be Roman or Protestant.
