An Example of Solo Scriptura Gone Wrong — "Da Gifts"

Posted on by

This post is out of the ordinary for my blog here, it’s a bit “off-topic,” ironically, in regards to the intent of this blog; but I just wanted to offer a response to Dan Phillips, of Pyromaniacs fame. He recently did a series of posts dealing with topics like: New Revelation, spiritual gifts, “hearing from God” today, prophecy, etc. Anyway, I made a comment challenging, by-in-large, the logic and premises of his thought; which he promptly deleted, disallowing any kind of critique of his “forceful” thinking in this area. I thought I would re-present what I originally offered over at the Pyromaniacs site here (basically giving what I gave over at the Pyros, which Dan arbitrarily muted/deleted). So before this post makes any sense, you’ll have to go and read Dan’s thoughts here.

Here’s my comment, bullet-pointed:

  1. Your (Dan’s) premise is unsound because it engages in the argument of the beard (or fails to make a distinction on a continuum of belief). In other words, you fail to offer distinctions between folks who believe that God “speaks” to people’s hearts today, and those who believe that they receive “new revelation” from God today (this also is equivocating the terms).
  2. Your argument is based on an argument from silence; assuming that you’ve made your point, thus there are no other valid alternatives besides those you have supposedly “knocked over.”
  3. You’ve created a false dichotomy (this is related to my first point); meaning that you’ve assumed that either your position is the biblical perspective, or the one you’re arguing against is (this is also straw-manning). What if there are other ways to frame this.
  4. You’ve assumed that a “close canon,” ipso facto establishes your point; again this is shaped by all of the wrong assumptions I’ve just noted in my first three points. Your argument on a closed canon (in fact), I presume, is based on the flimsy thinking typically presented from I Corinthians 13. I agree that the canon is “closed,” de jure (in principle), but not de facto (in fact).

In the end, you have done an injustice to thinking this issue through, and scriptuarally so. To equate folks who believe that God speaks to them from His “Word” today (in applied and sensitive ways, see Jn 14–16), with folks who believe that they receive new revelation from God is just sloppy.

————————————-

That ends the gist of my comment, the one that Dan deleted. I don’t think the Pyros like me (most people over at the Pyros site seem to think that I am too “intellectual,” and thus I am immediately snarky and insincere in my comments — you’ll see that Dan appeals to this in his comment back to me), or instead, like anyone who might actually challenge what they are saying. They can’t handle thinking outside of the box that they have deemed within the boundaries of “Scripture” (their interpretation); and they can’t, apparently, handle the notion that there might be folks who have studied (just like they have) Scripture and Theology, and come to different (and substantial) conclusions that they have.

I entitled this post with the solo scriptura [scripture only] (in contrast to sola scriptura [scripture alone]) nomenclature because, typically, the Pyromaniacs, in general, and Dan in particular, pride themselves on approaching scripture with the “keys,” and apparently without any informing interpretive grids that they just might be reading into Scripture. This has the effect, on their faithful readership, of a magesterial-like authority; that appears to end all discussion with a resounding “LET IT BE SO!”

17 thoughts on “An Example of Solo Scriptura Gone Wrong — "Da Gifts"”

  1. You hit the nail on the head. I finally came to the conclusion that Pyromaniacs simply was not worth the time and effort. They will simply not listen to any opinion but their own.

  2. It’s too bad that happened, Bobby. I haven’t dropped in on the Pyros for weeks, so haven’t got a clue about what they’ve been up to.
    It seems a lot of bloggers don’t appreciate when an opposing opinion (regardless of how politely stated) turns up on their site. And, I can understand when guest commentary is truly rude and inflammatory.

    But, it’s as though there’s an unwritten code:

    Discussion is welcome–as long as it matches the opinion of the blog author.
    Everyone is entitled to his own opinion–just don’t express it *here*
    Agree as loudly as you like with even incredibly obnoxious posts–but if you question what’s been written, you’re automatically a troublemaker.
    If the blog author marks a visitor as a “troll”, it is perfectly okay for all guests to join in the cyber-tomato toss with impunity.

    Anyway, on your topic:

    I’ve noticed in certain circles (don’t know about the Pyros) the point of “sola scriptura” has taken on almost an idolatrous tint. By that, I mean that the Bible is held up as authoritative, but often used as nothing more than a means by which to win self-promoting arguments. πŸ™

    This:

    To equate folks who believe that God speaks to them from His β€œWord” today (in applied and sensitive ways, see Jn 14–16), with folks who believe that they receive new revelation from God is just sloppy. says a lot, IMO.

    I am in no way interested in receiving “new revelation”, but often I will have read and be praying and considering something and within a day or two also be given a punctuating “real life” example which enables me to understand in a practical sense what the text meant.

    To say God doesn’t speak to people anymore except through the Bible by way of professionally trained interpreters sounds a little like “popery”, to me and seems like a denial of individual relationship by way of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

    Maybe I’m being too harsh, though.

  3. Matthew,

    So true!

    I’ll be responding to your email as soon as I can; we’ve been on the road quite a bit lately πŸ™‚ .

  4. Hi Heather,

    That’s why I made the distinction between “solo” scriptura and “sola.” Sola scriptura has always recognized the reality and value of “tradition” (or “theological constructs”).

    I think there is certainly a place for professionally trained exegetes and theologians; I think the real problem, in general, with the Pyros is their attitude — of course “the people” or “their people” only feeds into their insecurity.

    Interestingly, Frank Turk, on a recent comment thread made an open challenge to debate any and all comers on anything to do with Calvinism. I took him up on it, on that thread, and via two emails — but no response; I think he’s scared πŸ˜‰ .

  5. I think he’s scared πŸ˜‰ .

    LOL!

    Who knows?

    I don’t mind admitting there were some good things I gained from the Pyro writings. But their overall approach just doesn’t fit my learning style, I guess. It’s been good to be forced to do my own digging.
    As you said, it’s not wrong to be professionally trained. But there can be a tendency to rely more heavily on such people than I should.

  6. Bobby,

    And these targets (Poythress and Grow) aren’t Arminians or pelagians or evolutionists or secularists, but fellow Calvinists. Okay, maybe it’s their way of saying you’re really not Calvinists after all, because only we are. Sweeping up after Vern Poythress? Really? I’m glad you took the time to read and digest the whole series. I just didn’t have the energy.

    I’m still waiting for Phil’s upcoming series on legalism and liberty announced back in June.

  8. Steve,

    I skimmed the posts, except for the “sweep up.” But not too long ago Dan did a post or two on this same issue; he laid out his beliefs there, so this series wasn’t anything new.

    Yeah, I saw Phil announce that too; hmmm…

  9. Aw Bobby,

    You’ve already forgotten my tongue-in-cheek grand exit “rant” about how it’s okay to be rude when you’re “right”.

    I’m disappointed πŸ™

    For the record, I haven’t changed my mind about the way things are run over there, but I also haven’t been back but maybe twice. So, I have to be fair and say I really don’t know what they’ve been up to lately.

  10. Hey Bobby,
    Good stuff! I’ve been lurking, just haven’t had much to say (for a change). On a personal note: I noticed on fb one of your favorite things is baseball. I was pleased to read that. That fills out “Bobby Grow” a little, as before, all I knew of your corporal being, was as a much more capable reader than am I, and as a pincushion (I’m thankful that’s over).
    Although I don’t play baseball specifically, it’s a “man thing” to do. I’m more suited to volley ball, I like hackey sack and I was a marathon runner, up until my present job. It’s too demanding. The point is, I’m glad there is an athletic side to you. Praying that you quickly recover your physical strength. Sorry about being off topic but “the people” needed to know that there is an athlete behind the muscular words we read on this flat screen.
    1 Cor 9:22f.

  11. Duane,

    Thanks, and thanks for the “recent gift” πŸ˜‰ we really appreciate that! Yeah, I actually really enjoy athletics, I am/was an avid basketball player — but I enjoy most sports (basketball being my favorite).

  12. How ’bout that! I misread that. I thought it said baseball. Check my glasses. Basketball’s pretty cool. I played a coupled times in the navy. I can’t jump and I can’t shoot, but I can move pretty quickly, I don’t tire out, and I can block. I guess that makes me defensive, but I’ve also been called offensive. ; 0 ) It’s more physical than II remember from school gym class. Awesome! Just writing the last comment made me want to start running again. I’m fit from work, there’s just something about the road.

  13. I have to stay away from the pyros. They seem to me like the “pro wrestlers” of evangelical bloggers. I wonder how they square their literal interpretation of Col 4:6 with their blog style.

    I don’t know them, so maybe I just don’t get it. But that’s just it, I don’t get it!

    The only way I can exercise Romans 12:18 with them is to stay off of their site.

    Peace,

    Craig

  14. Hey Bobby!
    I just felt burdened for my friends over at the Compassion Int’l social network site (OC).
    A few of them have said they are struggling with underemployment and finances are getting really scary. So I felt compelled to write a blog for them (I wonder if that was one of ‘da gifts’). I asked for our fellow sponsors to pray for them (not by name). I used Jacob’s story – one of my favorite Genesis stories. Jacob is anticipating meeting Esau, who has 400 men with him. That night Jacob wrestles with “a man”. I relate this in very strong way with prayer (is that another gift?). “I will not l let you go unless you bless me” applies in my life to a very dark night I had several years ago. Finally Jacob wrestles with the right man for a blessing. “No longer shall you be called Jacob, but your name shall be Israel, for as a prince you have power with God and with men and you have prevailed.” I bet you’ve had some wrestling matches like that over the past 10 or 11 months?
    And Jacob walked away injured too, but forever wed to his God.

  15. Amen, Duane, thanks for sharing your heart here! Yes, you know I’ve had some wresting matches; and I know that we all do as Christians, so thanks for sharing this!

  16. Heh.

    This discussion came to mind when I recently was prompted to re-evaluate my own blog interaction and ended up e-mailing an apology to author of the Pyro post which seemed to promote the idea that it’s okay to be condescending as long as one is “right”. I still have trouble with that concept but it occurred to me that my attempt at being lightheartedly “mock-rude” really did end up looking snotty.

    Funny how things will come up months after the fact–not so much as an answer to what others ought to do, but as a mirror into one’s own life πŸ™‚

  17. Nice, Heather. This just means you’re sensitive to the Holy Spirit . . . what we all need, thanks for the good example πŸ™‚ !

Comments are closed.