I have a confession...I am way too involved in social media. I have used it as a way to network, and in so doing I see the opinions of complete strangers. In so doing I have seen a reoccurring theme: skepticism of church history. It seems to be coming from "the extreme Sola Scriptura club." Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with carefully and literally following the scripture, but I do have a problem with a nonchalant dismissal of nearly 2,000 years of church tradition.
Here is the irony I see in all of this, how can you believe wholeheartedly that God used fallible people to accurately record his Word and the fail to even consider that he did the same using the church fathers. Why couldn't He use the Council of Nicea to expound upon His revelation? Why do you reject the concept of the Trinity because it is not directly in scripture (this is a real example)...you don't think God was at work when the church formed this understanding? Let me remind you that those people that you are rejecting are the ones who determined what books would be in the bible that you are reading.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think church doctrine should contradict scripture (that is why I don't buy immaculate conception - "All have sinned and fallen short..."). What it comes down to is this, Jesus gave his followers (what would become the church) his job of being the living revelation of God before he departed. If you believe that God's revelation did not die with Jesus' ascension than you have to believe that God has guided the church the way he guided those who formed the bible. You also must believe that God continues to guide his church.
No comments:
Post a Comment