Which Comes First? by David McClister (http://www.palmettochurchofchrist.org/)
Which comes first: doctrine or the Bible?
This is not a trick question. Now in New Testament times, while the New Testament documents were still being written and collected, obviously those Christians did not have a book they could call the New Testament (although many of the writings were in circulation by the time Peter wrote 2 Pet 3:16). But the apostles were alive and traveled to various places to teach the gospel and the doctrines of the Lord to those Christians. In that context, then, the doctrine came first (from Jesus through the apostles), and it was eventually put into written form (the New Testament).
But I ask the question not about the situation in apostolic times, but of today. For us, which do we place first: doctrine or Scripture? For us the matter ought to be plain. The doctrines we teach must come from Scripture and Scripture alone. For us, therefore, the Bible comes first, and the doctrines we teach are the product of that book.
A strange thing happens repeatedly throughout history, however. People who are convinced that they have learned the truth express that truth in ways that are peculiar to their times and circumstances, and that are influenced by those same circumstances. This is unavoidable, because every generation that is serious about learning God's truth will study it with a view to making sense of it in their present situation and will study it from its own perspective. That is a good thing, and the Bible is certainly capable of speaking to every generation in whatever situation prevails. What happens, however, is that in time the situation in which the church finds itself changes, but the expression of the Biblical truth that they once found so relevant to their lives may not. So a new generation inherits the older generation's way of expressing the truth of God. If the newer generation is not properly sensitive to its responsibility to learn the truth for itself directly from the Bible, a doctrinal tradition develops.
That doctrinal tradition may or may not be a good one, depending on how accurately it was gleaned from the Bible in the first place. If the original (human) doctrinal expressions of the Bible's teachings were not based on sound Bible study, then those doctrines will not be accurate statements of what the Bible teaches. Every generation must learn from the previous one, but every generation must also examine what it has received from its forefathers against the Bible, "to see whether these things were so" (Acts 17:11). We may respect our forefathers in the faith for their zeal and their sincerity, but we are not allowed the luxury of accepting what they said on that basis alone. If they taught the truth, that will be determined by holding what they taught us against the Bible; and if what they taught us does not stand the test of Scripture, we must repudiate it. [This is exactly why I repudiate the idea that I - or members of the Lord's church today - are Campbellites, as if we are simply robots who repeated what Alexander Campbell taught. Our aim is to learn and preach only what the Bible says. If we happen to agree with Alexander Campbell (or Martin Luther, or John Calvin, for that matter) on a point because he expressed what the Bible itself teaches, then that agreement is wholly coincidental.]
Now, to return to our initial question, if a later generation does not hold what it was taught from the previous generation against the word of God for testing and approval, the danger is that the newer generation will simply assume that it has been taught the truth from its forefathers. The standard the newer generation upholds, then, is what they were taught from their fathers, which may not necessarily be an accurate expression of Biblical truth (how could anyone know if that doctrine was not seriously and honestly tested against the Bible itself?).
When that happens, doctrine gets in front of the Bible.
I think I could make the case that this very thing has happened
throughout the denominational religious world. The real, question,
however, is: could this happen to us? Could it have already happened?
When translations of the Bible are acclaimed or rejected based
upon whether they support the doctrine we teach, maybe that is
a sign that things have become backwards. When practices are criticized
not from book, chapter, and verse but from "we've never done
it that way," then maybe our thinking has become skewed.
When we applaud some denominational Bible scholars because they
say what we want them to say about baptism, and then we turn around
and marvel at how stupid those same scholars can be because they
do not teach what we do on some other subject, then maybe our
loyalties have become misplaced.
To put it another way, whether or not a new Bible translation is useful or not depends upon its success in communicating what the Bible itself says. If it crosses our doctrine but is faithful to the original Biblical text, then it is our doctrine that needs to go out the window and not the new translation. What some Bible scholar says should be cherished or rejected based on whether his views comport with the Bible, and not whether or not he agrees with us. You see, our understanding of the Bible is always susceptible to error, but the Bible itself never is. The standard of judgment must be the book, not us.
It is exactly for this reason that there is no such thing as "church of Christ doctrine." There is the Bible doctrine, or there is false doctrine ("another gospel, which is really no gospel at all" - Gal 1:6-7), but no room in between for anything else.
This ability to be critical (in the good sense; discerning, testing) of what we have been taught, and of what we ourselves teach to others, is so important that it can hardly be overstated. The question is, will we let the Bible come first?
The Home Wrecker by Dan S. Shipley (from Plain Talk,
November, 1983)
Though seldom identified, the sin of selfishness is the culprit
responsible for most every problem, heartache, misery, and division
occurring in the home. One of the marks of the "grievous
times" of which Paul prophesied was that men would be lovers
of self (2 Tim. 3:1, 2). And, grievous it is when husbands and
wives will subordinate family needs to personal preferences; when
they think in terms of self: What I want, what I like, my rights,
my interests, and my happiness. Such thinking is practically the
guarantee of hard times at home. But too few see selfishness as
being a personal problem.
As H.W. Beecher has said, "Selfishness is that detestable
vice which no one will forgive in others, and no one is without
in himself." It is our inclination to see ourselves as the
victims of selfishness rather than the guilty. As the unhappy
wife I recently read about was heard to say, "My husband
doesn't show any interest in what I do. All he cares about is
whatever it is that he does at that place - wherever it is - that
he works!" (Bits & Pieces, Aug. '83) Such an attitude
may describe us more than we care to admit. As God's people we
are not ignorant of Satan's devices (2 Cor. 2:11), the deceitfulness
of sin, nor its blinding power. Therefore, however remote and
unlikely it may seem, we must see the possibility of selfishness
in our own lives! Like the prodigal son, we must come to self
to overcome self (Lk. 15:17). As Paul says, "Examine yourselves..."
(2 Cor. 13: 5), test your motives with absolute honesty for none
can begin to deal with a problem he won't admit.
Self-denial is one of the first lessons to be learned by the follower
of Christ (Matt. 16:24). Nothing is more fundamental to obedience
and righteousness. Without it, no man can truly love his wife
as Christ loved the church (Eph. 5:25). As Christ's love sacrificed
self for the church, so must be the husband's for his wife. It
is an unselfish and giving love. Without it, wives cannot be in
subjection to their husbands, as unto the Lord (v.22). The very
spirit that prompts submission to the Lord should prompt it between
husband and wife. Being what the Lord wants me to be means being
what I need to be to my mate. Selfishness, then, is a sin against
man and God - and, oftentimes, against children.
Accordingly, bringing up children in the nurture and admonition
of the Lord (Eph. 6:4) involves denying self. For instance, rearing
children for heaven takes time. Selfishness robs many children
of that precious time - under an alias, to be sure. Too busy,
too tired, to talk and answer questions, to read the Bible, to
pray with them, to take them to worship. But, worse perhaps, are
those children who suffer because selfish parents divide the home
rather than deny self. It is almost unthinkable that some would
trade a good family for a selfish indulgence; for a bottle, for
a lover, for "good times." Yet, it continues to happen,
even among some claiming to be Christians. In these, and even
in more subtle and respectable ways, selfishness is the great
home wrecker: May God helps us to want it purged from our lives.
You and Your Enemies (Selected from The Beacon)
"A man is as big as the things which annoy him."
"A man should not allow himself to hate even his enemies,
because if you indulge this passion on some occasions, it will
rise of itself in others. If you hate your enemies, you will contract
such a vicious habit of mind, as by degrees will break out upon
those who are your friends, or those who are indifferent to you."
-Plutarch
"But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse
you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully
use you, and persecute you" - Jesus Christ (Matthew 5:44)
MARK YOUR CALENDARS
Our weekly services are held at 1318 Griffin Road, Leesburg, Florida
34748.
Phone: (352) 365-9946 for times of services.
Web site: http://www.careydillinger.com/cocbs/cocbshp.htm
MONTHLY BIBLE READING: 1 and 2 Kings; 1 and 2 Chronicles
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS
BIBLE INSIGHT is published for the members of, and
visitors to, the Church of Christ at Beverly Shores, Leesburg,
Florida, USA.
Carey Dillinger is the editor. He can be reached at the church
address or via e-mail: webmaster@careydillinger.com