Well, after finishing the Sola Scriptura series of posts, I would now like to briefly go through and refute the blatant heresies of the God-hater Bruce or 666 888. I have made some preliminary comments here and now I would continue my refutation of the stuff muttered by this guy. Since I have proved the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, I will operate from this as an axiom to 'deconstruct' Bruce's teachings.
As can be seen from a glance at his blogs, Bruce denies Sola Scriptura. Judging from his usage of extra-biblical teachings of 'masters' and pseudepigrapha books like the book of Enoch, he denies the sufficiency of Scripture and posits an open canon, whereby of course he is the authority (or perhaps he and his so-called masters are) in determining what books should have made it into the Bible. He denies also the perspicuity of Scripture, and most importantly he consistently denies the authority of Scripture.
When one looks through the material presented on his blogs, one is really hard-pressed to find anything of substance. All one finds is speculations, heresies, and more heresies. I would therefore just look at the few arguments he offer from Scripture to attack the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and then deconstruct Bruce's entire worldview.
One verse which Bruce used to attempt to disprove Sola Scriptura in the aspect of the sufficiency of Scripture and the Canon of Scripture is Jn. 16:12, from a quote he ascribed to Dr. Steiner[1]. This is what Dr. Steiner supposedly wrote:
"By realizing that Christianity will bring forth from its depths an increasing flow of new and more living creations, we enhance its greatness. Those who are always saying: ‘That is not in the Bible, that is not true Christianity and those who maintain that it is, are heretics’, must be reminded that Christ also said: ‘I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now’. He did not say this in order to indicate that He wished to withhold anything from men, but that from epoch to epoch He would bring them new revelations. And this He will do through those who are willing to understand Him. Those who deny that there can be new revelations do not understand the Bible, neither do they understand Christianity. For they have no ears for what is implied in the admonition given by Christ: ‘I have still much to say to you — but prepare yourselves in order that you may be able to bear it and understand it.’
"The true Christians of the future will be those who are willing to hear what the Christians who were contemporaries of Christ were not yet able to bear. Those who allow Christ's Grace to flow into their hearts in ever increasing abundance — they will be the true Christians. The ‘hard of heart’ will resist this Grace, saying: Go back to the Bible, to the literal text of the Bible, for that alone is true. This is a disavowal of the words which in Christianity itself kindle light, words which we will take into our hearts: ‘I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.’ Good it will be for men when they can bear more and more in this sense: for thereby they prepare themselves for the ascent into the spiritual heights. And to these spiritual heights Christianity leads the way."- Conceptions of Original Sin & Grace
Now, looking at this section, one can immediately sees the absolute rubbish written by this unregenerate heretic Dr. Steiner. He said that people who deny new revelations 'do not understand the Bible, nor do they understand Christianity'. I would counter that it is Steiner himself who does not understand the Bible, nor understand Christianity. Having the spirit of antichrist, he places his own reasoning above what the Scriptures teaches. His statements are totally illogical. This is because even if what he says is true, Scripture still is revelation and new revelation cannot contradict the old revelation, because by so doing the old revelation ceases to be revelation at all. So therefore, if the Scriptures are still revelation, then it is proper and right to measure new revelations according to Scripture (the 'old revelations'). Anyway, how does one discern the new revelations as distinct from counterfeit revelations, according to Bruce and Steiner? They can't, unless they operate from the standpoint of the authority of their 'masters' and their own intellect, but we will cover that later.
With this, let us look at the verse Jn. 16:12 in context. This verse is in the passage where Jesus is talking about the Paraclete, the coming Holy Spirit, who will come and fill the Disciples when Jesus is gone, which has started to occur on the Day of Pentecost as reported in Acts 2. Before Jesus went to the Cross, he mentioned in verse 7 that He must go to the Cross and then the Holy Spirit would come, otherwise the Holy Spirit wouldn't come. This is thus the context in which the verse Jn. 16:12 is in.
Now, so what does this verse mean? It means that there are things that the disciples will not be able to understand which Jesus would like to tell them. However, it cannot mean what Bruce and Steiner would like it to mean since this verse is followed by verse 13, which states:
When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, ... (Jn. 16:13a)
Thus, we can see that verse 13 is telling us that when the Holy Spirit comes, which he intially did at Pentecost, he will guide the disciples into ALL the truth, not some of the truth, but all. Read in context, verse 12 and 13 present a strong case for the necessity of the Holy Spirit in enabling us to interpret the Scripture properly. Verse 12 states that the disciples cannot bear to hear them; cannot understand the truths which Jesus would want to tell them. Conversely, verse 13 presents the solution to this problem with Jesus promising the disciples that they would be able to understand all truth, which Jesus would want them to know, when the Holy Spirit comes and illuminate their minds so as to lead them into all truths. Therefore, Jn. 16:12 is far from promoting what Steiner and Bruce would want it to say. This verse is wrenched out of context and forced to say something which it does not mean.
Next, we will look at another place where Bruce tried to refute Sol aScriptura, in the aspect of the perspicuity of Scripture. To this effect, he quotes 2 Cor. 3:6, 14; 1 Cor. 2:14; 2 Peter 3:16; Dan. 12:4; Col. 2:2-3[2].
Let us ignore Col. 2:2-3, since it apprently escapes Bruce that this verse is totally irrelevant to Sola Scriptura. Bible-believing Christians do believe that all the wisdom and knowledge is found in Christ, and we further assert that Christ has made this knowledge to be found in the Bible (Deut. 29:29). Similarly, I don't see what Bruce is getting at by quoting Dan. 12:4, since this even more obviously had nothing whatsoever to do with Sola Scriptura. The whole topic of the prophet Daniel's vision in this part of Scripture is regarding prophecy proper, not anything with regards to the Scripture proper, thus the entire verse and context is totally irrelevant here.
The only thing 2 Peter 3:16 says is that some things in Scripture (in this case some of Paul's writings) are more difficult to understand than others, which I have mentioned in my article under the section of the perspicuity of Scripture. However, to extrpolate from some Scriptures being harder to understand to some Scripture being impossible to understand through ordinary means is a huge logical fallacy. Hard ≠ Impossible! Similarly, a thing which is hard to understand does not necessarily mean that it requires esoteric means to understand, which is another big logical fallacy. By way of analogy, it is hard to understand why somebody would commit suicide, but then to say that one must study psychology and get a pHD in it in order to understand why such a person do such a thing, otherwise one cannot do so, is ridiculous and fallacious. Bruce's case is thus logically flawed.
Looking at 1 Cor. 2:14, we can see that Bruce here is grasping for straws. This passage is talking about the centrality and necessity of the Holy Spirit in the interpretation of spiritual truths. Nowhere does it support Bruce's ridiculous paraphrase of this verse:
But the natural man [who interprets literally] receiveth not [cannot understand] the things of the Spirit of God: [the things written by the Spirit of God in the scriptures] for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. [because they are only understood spiritually.] - 1 Co 2:14
The problem for Bruce is that the idea of interpreting the Scriptures literally being equated with the natural or carnal man is NOT found in Scriptures and definitely not in the Scriptures themselves! This passage is saying that only those who can be born again, regenerated by God and transformed by Him can understand the Scriptures, whereas all others like Bruce who are carnal do not understand the Scripture, for they are foolishness to him. Instead, they constantly undermine Scripture and distort it, which the apostle Peter mention, to their own destruction (2 Tim. 3:16).
Bruce's eisegesis does not stop there. He misquotes the verse 2 Cor. 3:6 in an attempt to contrast the literal interpretation of Scripture (which he termed analogous to the 'letter' mentioned in the verse which killed) and his esoteric way of interpretation, which he termed analogous to the spirit which gives life). However, this verse is agains wrenched out of context to say things which it was never meant to say. This passage in context is contrasting the Law of the Old Testament with the Grace which comes from God; it is saying that the Law of Moses brings death while the Spirit of God gives life, echoing the writings of Paul in Rom. 7:7- 8:11 (not that the Law is sin, but that through the Law Man is shown to be sinful and thus placed under condemnation) This has nothing whatsoever to do with the interpretation of Scripture whatsoever!
Let us finish off this section by looking at the nonsense he says in his welcome message:
'The Bible thumper is, unknowingly, commiting the sin of idolatry. Yes indeed, they worship the graven image in print and paper rather than the Living God. They will even tell you that the Bible in inerrant. What nonsense! Only Father God is Perfect.'[3]
This is what I have mentioned in my Sola Scriptura article regarding the ridiculous charge of 'bibliolatry':
If the Bible is truly the Word of God, and the words therein are God-breathed, then what the Bible says is what God says. Since that is the case, believing the Bible and following its precepts is the same as following God. These people therefore blaspheme God by implying that to obeying Him and to treat His words with reverence is idolatry.
Therefore, since Scripture itself has said it is authoritative and it is the way that we can know God, Bruce is guilty of idolatry. He has made an idol of his own intellect, and of his 'masters'. And to this we shall now turn to.
From a look at Bruce's blogs, one can discern his liberal worldview and presuppostions. The problem with Bruce's use of all these external authorities is that why should I trust all these authorities which he trust? Upon what basis are they to be treated as though they are teaching truth? The only reasons Bruce could possibly give me is that either his 'christ' tolds him or that it is reasonable to do so (rationalism). Both of these reasons are totally fallacious. The first one is unverifiable and suspect, as any Tom, Dick and Harry could say that. The second reason is denied since I reject the idea of something which is just 'obvious' in and of itself to everyone out there. It definitely does not seem reasonable to me, anyway.
In the final analysis, Bruce's position is totally intellectually and spiritually bankrupt, since his positions are based on the shifting sands of human intellect and opinions. None of them can be based on Scripture alone and must depend on other sources, which have questonable authority. This includes Bruce's unbiblical belief in reincarnation and his denial of Original sin and General Revelation. Also, just because a person has a pHD or ThD is irrelevant as to that person's authority in spiritual knowledge, which 1 Cor. 1: 21 says. Therefore, Bruce's position is reduced to just an ipsit dixit, whereas the Scriptural position of Sola Scriptura stand strong amidst the attacks of heretics forever. Gloria in excelsis Deo. Soli Deo Gloria.
References:
[1] I have yet many things to say to you, but ye cannot hear them now (http://christianreincarnation.blogspot.com/2006/06/i-have-yet-many-things-to-say-unto-you.html)
[2] Bible Literalism (http://christianreincarnation.blogspot.com/2006/06/biblical-literalism.html)
[3] Welcome (http://christianreincarnation.blogspot.com/2006/06/welcome.html)
Praise the LORD!
ReplyDelete