hough it is not to be disputed among Christians that the Holy Scripture is the first & final authority for the formation & comprehension of doctrine, for the practice of faith, & for the general representation & precepts of Christian worldview -- unfortunately by whatever reason & motivation men often disagree on the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures.  What then is our recourse for securing to ourselves the proper interpretation of the Holy Scriptures?

The purpose of this very brief excerpt is to concisely and simply set forth the doctrine of Sola Scriptura over the false, modern-day evangelical doctrine of SOLO Scriptura that always seems to rise up among religious sects through church history.  Evangelicals today, for whatever reason, seem to be confusing Sola Scriptura with Solo Scriptura without understanding either precisely.  Those evangelicals who say they hold to the Sola Scriptura hermeneutic of the Reformation are really using the Reformed terms of the Reformation but are, in actuality, denying the authentic doctrine itself.  This is not just a play on words or some kind of semantic game.  Rather, this is a conflagration of the true doctrine, and a propagation of something the church has deemed in error by way of a faulty hermeneutic.  Hopefully the following points will clarify this and amend this theological mayhem.

It is unfortunate that false view of Sola Scriptura today is aiding the modern church in further schism, rather than unifying the church.  Sola Scriptura should not be used as a “me and my bible” hermeneutic which allows “each individual Christian” to maintain their own theological view point on a given doctrine.  That is not what the Reformers intended, and it is not what the doctrine of Sola Scriptura teaches.  If you believe that Sola Scriptura means “each individual Christian should, on an individual level, use the Bible alone in understanding and determining the corpus of biblical truth” you have completely missed the idea and point of the doctrine itself.  Many people believe that the moment they hear the word “tradition” (the “t” word) that this is a very bad thing.  They want to say “the Bible alone!”  But they have missed the point again.  They believe this as a knee jerk reaction to Roman Catholicism which has a very different view of tradition than what Sola Scriptura teaches.  I want to note here and now, the Reformed position of Sola Scriptura is not, in any way, the same thing, as the view of the Roman Catholic Church’s view of Tradition PLUS Scripture as the church’s ecclesiastical authority.  Hopefully this will be made clear in a moment.

After a 15-year stint within the movement called “hyperpreterism” & my eventual departure from that community.  I thought I could just walk away in relative peace but more & more I see that there are many unanswered questions for those either still trapped in hyperpreterism or those toying with embracing it.  Some have asked me if I left hyperpreterism because of exegetical reasons or because of “personal” reasons.  As I tried to demonstrate other places, the personal reasons, such as the perpetually corrupt people were like the smoke indicating a possible fire – as I examined further, the exegetical reasons (the fire) became apparent. 

After many years of working in the corporate world where office drama & politics are the norm, I have noticed something that seems to be true about life in general – that we are often kept so busy doing really nothing that we have no time to consider things that matter.

It reminds me of a story I once heard about some of the Third World countries.  If you wonder why many of these countries have people out in the fields using crude rakes & hoes to plow & harvest crop, consider this.  The notion is that some people need to be kept busy or they will only fall into mischief, so the governments of those countries purposely keep people busy doing things that mechanization could do in no time.

But just as the idleness might allow people to fall into mischief, through the constant working; constant struggle to make ends meet until the day we die we may think it gives life purpose & meaning but does it really?

During the Iranian president's recent visit to America, he said:

"I think that if the U.S. administration, if the U.S. government, puts aside some of its old behaviors, it can actually be a good friend for the Iranian people, for the Iranian nation. If the U.S. government recognizes the rights of the Iranian people, respects all nations and extends a hand of friendship with all Iranians, they, too, will see that Iranians will be one of its best friends."

First off it is important that the concept of real friendship between a Muslim & a non-Muslim is forbidden by the Qur'an.  In the Qur'an it says:

Whenever we are facing the prospect of making an important decision we are often told to weigh the "pros & cons", but a recent situation made me start thinking more about this seemingly sound advice.  My wife was speaking with a woman who has been living with a man who fathered at least one of her few children.  She has been living with him off & on for over 16 years but has never married him.  He is verbally abusive & has even told her that if she ever tried to move out he would "blow up her house" (where ever she went to live).  Supposedly the relationship is rather loveless at any rate though he is not physically abusive.  Now, as my wife was listening to this woman's account, the woman stated she would like to change the situation but didn't know if it was best.  so, here is an example of a very important decision.

First as a Reformed/Calvinistic Christian & based on 1 John 2:19, I am with most that would view a person who could renounce their faith as them having never been a Christian in the first place. But there are also people who may be Christians who have been so abused by the false systems & hypocritical people claiming to be Christians that they have simply lost their way but have not actually lost their faith…even if they claim they have.

There are some people that have accused me of being “intolerant” & “judgmental” but how then do they reconcile my ongoing conversation with this Christian turned Atheist?  These accusers never have understood what type of “intolerance” & “judgmentalism” has been at work – it is an intolerance & judgment not against folks that genuinely are exploring the boundaries of their faith, but I am repulsed by people especially people calling themselves “Christians” who have agendas so obviously out of step with the Bible; agendas they even try to pretend aren’t agendas; social agendas to re-image & reshape the simple Gospel message of “Repent & Believe” (Mark 1:14-15) into some soft-pedaled message of promiscuous “love”.  The one-man belief systems being pawned off on others as if these guys are traveling snake-oil salesmen should be rejected. THOSE are the things against which I am intolerant & judging – not against sincere Christians confirming their faith through testing.  The Bible even calls us to “make our calling & election sure” (2 Peter 1:10). Test our faith & see why we believe & if we really believe & not just following along because everyone else is.

It seems to be the cool & "progressive" thing for trendy "Christian" leaders & their lapdog followers to quote Gandhi.  They tell us Gandhi was an example of true faith.  That Gandhi was a "seeker" on the "journey"  of faith & that we can all learn from him.  But it is telling that the people who laud Gandhi the most are theological & political socialists/communists typically hiding behind the labels of "libertarian" or "inclusive".

You see an almost more intense love for Gandhi than for Jesus from many of the postmodern gurus of today such as Brian McClaren & Rob Bell who constantly try to "re-image" or "re-paint" Jesus as a Gandhian-like figure that simply wants everyone to be nice to each other.  This is their version of a "new kind of Christianity".  They also embrace Gandhi's syncretic contradiction as being able to be Christian, Hindu, Muslim, & Buddhist all at the same time.

After we see what Gandhi has really said, we'll see why these socialists love him so much.

Sometimes people may feel that their existence is more or less purposeless – I know, I know what we are told but this doesn’t change the fact that when we consider the mass of creation, what are we? Titles & roles really don’t always help, I mean titles & roles like being someone’s mother or father or being someone’s spouse, or daughter or son, or being someone’s brother or sister – since these roles don’t seem especially unique.  Everyone fills those roles.  Everyone is performing many of the same functions as everyone else.

Some people try to fill this apparent void of self-worth by becoming more self-centered.  They build a role for themselves in an attempt to stand out from others, but does this really give the person identity?

The following article relates directly to the subjectivity of the postmodern/emergent & now "idealist" concepts prevading so many areas of Christianity.  Words once meant something.  Propositions once meant something.  A person could not simply state something & not expect it to have consequences or be analyzed & even possibly challenged.  But now we are being told to have endless, pointless "conversations" about mere opinions.  We are told we can't really be certain & that instead we must be "generous" & "relational".  We are told that the myth, story, or "narrative" is more important than the doctrine or dogma to which it points.  I will add some editorial comments noted by green text & brackets [ ].