Biblical Authority in Matters of Faith and Practice, Part 2

Read Part 1.

^{Note: Reprinted from Worship in Song by Scott Aniol, published by BMH Books, Winona Lake, Indiana, www.bmhbooks.com. Used by permission.}

CHAPTER ONE

Biblical Authority in Matters of Faith and Practice

Critique of the Encyclopedic View of Scripture

Those who promote the encyclopedic view of Scripture in terms of its applicability fail to understand several key princi­ples with regard to Sola Scriptura and the Bible’s own example of moral application.

Sola Scriptura Understood Correctly

First, it is important to recognize that the formulators of the principle of Sola Scriptura never intended it to be applied in the manner of the encyclopedic view. For instance, consider these lines from Article VI of the Westminster Confession of Faith:

The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary con­sequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.¹²

Defenders of Sola Scriptura in the past realized that God intends all believers to deduce principles from His Word and apply them to every area of practice. What Luther and the other Reformers intended with Sola Scriptura is that the Bible must be the supreme authority for the Christian, not that it will be the only source of information utilized in the applica­tion of its authoritative principles. They recognized the necessity of using common sense and reason to apply Scripture’s principles to life. As Klug notes, “Closely tied to Luther’s basic principle that Scriptura sui ipsius interpres is the ministerial use of reason, not the abnegation of it.”¹³

In truth, the principle of Sola Scriptura, rightly understood in light of the Bible’s own statements, implies that Scripture must be applied to all of life, including contemporary situa­tions the biblical authors would have never anticipated. The principle’s own primary support text, 2 Timothy 3:16-17, ex­plicitly states this. All Scripture is profitable in such a way that the people of God can be thoroughly equipped for every good work. The word, “profitable” (Greek, ophelimos) communicates the idea of being beneficial, productive, and sufficient. These verses affirm the absolute sufficiency of Scripture to meet all the spiritual needs of God’s people. The Bible provides the instruction to equip God’s people for every good work so they are able to meet all demands of righteousness, even within contemporary contexts.

Adiaphora Understood Correctly

Promoters of the encyclopedic view of Scripture also dem­onstrate a misunderstanding of adiaphora (“things indiffer­ent”). The formulation of the doctrine of adiaphora arose from within Lutheran controversy shortly after Luther’s death. Some Lutherans, including Melanchthon, compromised with Rome in order to stay the rising persecution against them. In the Leipzig Interim (1548), Melanchthon and other Lutheran leaders compromised with Rome, not in essential doctrine, but in ceremonial requirements. They required Lutherans to submit to confirmation, episcopal ordination, extreme unc­tion, fasts, processions, and the use of icons.

This action, which Schaff calls Melanchthon’s “greatest mistake in his life,”¹⁴ caused quite a controversy within Lu­theranism. This, along with other significant controversies, led to the development of the Formula of Concord (1577), in which the doctrine of adiaphora was first stated. In Article X, “Of Ecclesiastical Ceremonies, Which are commonly called Adiaphora, or things indifferent,” the Formula answered the question of

whether in time of persecution and a case of confession (even though our adversaries will not agree with us in doctrine), nevertheless with a safe conscience, certain cer­emonies already abrogated, which are of themselves indif­ferent, and neither commanded nor forbidden by God, may, on the urgent demand of our adversaries, again be re­established in use, and whether we can in this way rightly conform with the Papists in ceremonies and adiaphora of this sort.¹⁵

The conclusion of the Formula was that they “ought not yield to the enemies of the Gospel in things indifferent.”¹⁶ Instead, they should affirm liberty of conscience in such areas.

In other words, the doctrine of adiaphora applies specifically to requiring certain rites or ceremonies of God’s people when they have not been commanded by God in Scripture. In this way, the doctrine of adiaphora correctly reflects the original in­tent of Paul’s instructions in Romans 14 concerning Christian liberty—no man should be constrained to participate in a re­ligious ceremony that has no biblical warrant. Therefore, nei­ther the doctrine of adiaphora nor Christian liberty applies to decisions regarding contemporary moral situations. They apply only in situations where authorities within the Church require God’s people to participate in extrabiblical religious rites.

Biblical Application Understood Correctly

The Bible’s own example contradicts the encyclopedic view. The Bible does not present itself as an encyclopedia of prohibitions or as a rulebook. Pettegrew notes, “The Bible is not written to be an ethical textbook, systematically deal­ing with every legal, social, and ethical problem that can be imagined.”¹⁷ Instead, as Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard note, Scripture expects its readers to correctly apply its principles to contemporary issues. They give two reasons for this view: “First, the Scriptures themselves repeatedly claim that people glorify God by obeying—that is by applying—his Word,” and “Second, the Bible claims that its message is relevant for later generations, not just its original readers.”¹⁸

Makujina also finds problems with an encyclopedic view of Scriptural moral application.¹⁹ He specifically cites two passages that contradict such a position: Galatians 5:19-21 and Hebrews 5:11-14. He points out the phrase “and things like these” in the Galatians passage, and asserts, “Paul expected his readers to ex­ercise intelligence and discernment in determining additional attitudes, activities, and behaviors that were similar to these.”²⁰ In other words, Paul himself did not intend for his vice lists to be taken as encyclopedic moral prohibitions. In fact, as Maku­jina notes, Paul expected such “works of the flesh” as he listed to be obvious. Makujina goes so far as to argue, “Even if this already representative inventory of fifteen vices were omitted from Scripture, we would still be able to identify these behav­iors as sinful, for they are ‘obvious.’”²¹

Makujina uses the Hebrews passage to critique an ency­clopedic view of biblical application. He notes that spiritual infants are those who “lack experience and skill in gleaning moral guidance from Scripture.”²² Mature Christians are those who have “trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.”

Indeed, the mature advance beyond the basic teachings of the Christian faith—both doctrinal and moral—and are able to use them to make comparisons, weigh evidences, detect similarities, identify and apply principles, discern inten­tions, navigate through the complexities of culture-specific activities, and draw more sophisticated conclusions on the appropriateness of various behaviors and customs. But the immature are restricted to the basic teachings of right and wrong available in special revelation.²³

The Bible itself employs this kind of methodology in application. For instance, the reason homosexuality is considered a sin in Romans 1:26–27 is that it is “unnatural.” In other words, an explicit prohibition against homosexuality would not be necessary if one would simply compare the act with natural principles set forth in the creation narrative. Another similar example may be found in 1 Corinthians 11:8-9, where Paul reveals the principle behind his instructions regarding man’s headship over women: “For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.”

In summary, a proper understanding of both the principle of Sola Scriptura and the Bible’s own example contradict an en­cyclopedic view of scriptural application. Indeed, proponents of such a view break their own rule, for to insist that believers must not apply Scripture to supposed adiaphora is an ethical statement with no explicit biblical warrant.

Notes

¹² James E. Bordwine, A Guide to the Westminster Confession of Faith and Larger Catechism (Jefferson, Mass.: The Trinity Foundation, 1991), 5-6 (emphasis added).
¹³ Klug, 35.
¹⁴ Phillip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, Vol. I (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2007), 300.
¹⁵ Ibid., Vol. III, 161.
¹⁶ Ibid., 162.
¹⁷ Larry Pettegrew, “Theological Basis of Ethics,” Master’s Theological Journal ll, 2 (Fall, 2000), 151.
¹⁸ William W. Klein, Craig L. Blomberg, Robert L. Hubbard, eds., Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Dallas: Word Publishing, 1993), 402.
¹⁹ John Makujina, “Forgotten Texts and Doctrines in Current Evangelical Responses to Culture,” presented at the East Region Annual Conference of The Evangelical Theological Society, March 26, 2004.
²⁰ Ibid., 4.
²¹ Ibid.
²² Ibid., 6.
²³ Ibid.

Scott Aniol received a bachelor’s degree in Church Music at Bob Jones University and a master’s degree in Musicology at Northern Illinois University. He has taken seminary classes at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary and did graduate work in choral conducting and church music history at Concordia University in River Forest, Illinois. As the executive director of Religious Affections Ministries, Scott speaks on the subjects of music and worship at various churches and conferences. His most recent speaking engagements include the Great Lakes Conference on Theology, Central Seminary’s Foundations Conference, International Baptist College, and Bob Jones Seminary. Scott’s book, Worship in Song, was recently released by BMH Books. Check out his Web site at Religious Affections Ministries.