Introduction

The reason for writing this

I write with both hope and concern. My intention is that these reflections will be beneficial, though I recognize they may challenge readers to confront unfamiliar or uncomfortable perspectives. I do not claim authority, but rather seek to serve as a voice of reason to encourage thoughtful dialogue about the Christian faith.

For many years, I accepted my church’s traditions, and I see value in that. But history shows that we can lose our way. I think of the time of the judges, when people did what seemed right to them, even though they had Moses’ writings. The prophets called Israel back when they strayed from God. Jesus also confronted the Pharisees and Sadducees. In Revelation, the seven churches are warned of the danger of falling into error. So, I believe it would be unwise for any church to think it cannot make mistakes in what it believes or does.

I am not claiming that I—or anyone—can unify all churches or settle every disputed doctrine. My concern is different: if we all confess that Scripture is our final authority, then we must also think carefully about how we seek truth together under that authority, rather than each person or group simply declaring, ‘My interpretation is the biblical one.’

What follows is an attempt to describe a more honest, accountable way of doing that.

Finding the Truth

First, we need to talk about truth. Is there such a thing as objective truth? Scientists say yes, because without the laws of physics, we couldn’t solve problems or make progress in technology. But where do these laws come from? If the universe follows physical laws, who made those laws? For people who believe in God, the answer is that they come from God’s mind. If God made the laws of nature, it makes sense to think He also made moral laws. No matter where or when people live, everyone seems to believe in right and wrong.

To understand physical laws, we need research and testing because they are not always obvious. Isaac Newton changed the world by trying to understand these laws, and scientists have kept searching for the truth ever since. It seems that God hides wisdom from those who do not look for it. If we have to study and test the laws of nature, maybe we should approach moral laws the same way. The universe is where we learn about physical laws, and the Bible is where we learn about moral laws. There are no new laws, only laws or applications of them waiting to be found and put into practice.

Two Revelations

Based on what we’ve talked about, there are two kinds of laws that show us different truths about our world. Each has its own purpose, and one should not take the place of the other.

General Revelation

General revelation is a powerful voice.

The heavens declare the glory of God;
And the firmament sheweth his handywork.
2  Day unto day uttereth speech,
And night unto night sheweth knowledge.
3  There is no speech nor language,
Where their voice is not heard.
4  Their line is gone out through all the earth,
And their words to the end of the world…

Psalm 19:1–4

General revelation is just as important as special revelation. It shows us that there is a Creator in a way that leaves no one without an excuse for not worshiping Him.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Romans 1:20

Jesus used general revelation to teach us profound lessons. He showed us the character of the Father when He said.

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44 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; 45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

Matthew 5:43–45

Jesus also gave us clear examples of the Father’s care, saying, “Our Father feeds the little birds and clothes the flowers of the field.”

Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?

Matthew 6:26

And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: 29 And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.

Matthew 6:28–29

General revelation teaches us about righteousness.

I believe that special revelation builds on general revelation. The first words of the Bible, Bereshit (in the beginning), state that there is a God without trying to prove it, because nature has already shown this. Natural revelation is so strong that Paul uses it to speak against homosexuality.

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Romans 1:26–27

Today, some people try to argue that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality. Paul appeals to nature rather than Mosaic law, showing that the created order itself reveals God’s design — that our bodies were made to work in certain ways that homosexuality goes against. Jesus also affirms this created order, though in a different context. When questioned about divorce, He appealed directly to Genesis, grounding His answer in God’s design of male and female from the beginning.

And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

Matthew 19:4–5

General revelation can only go so far.

General revelation can teach us a lot, but it has its limits. For example, it can tell us about the universe, but not who made it or why. It also cannot explain the meaning of life. Studying how something works does not tell us why it exists. We do not study an invention to learn why the inventor made it or what inspired them. Someone could know everything about a meal but not why the cook made it or how they felt about it. We do not expect to find the inventor or cook inside their creation, so we look to special revelation for those answers. For inventions, we read biographies or history books. Since the universe is a creation, we need a book that tells its story, and there is no book like the Bible for that.

Special Revelation

Special revelation gives us the answers that general revelation cannot.

Special revelation, and in this case, we are talking about the Bible, we learn things that general revelation cannot tell us. For instance, we cannot know the transcendent purpose of humanity without the bible.

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Genesis 1:26

Our main purpose as humans is to care for the earth under God’s leadership.

And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

Genesis 2:8

God’s plan was to create a garden paradise on earth, with people taking care of it. This is the only plan for the world, and it points us toward the final goal described in Revelation.

And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away…

Revelation 22:3–5

And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him: 4 And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads. 5 And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.

Revelation 21:1

Special revelation also has its limits.

Special revelation and general revelation each speak to different aspects of truth. General revelation shows us the created order — what the world is and how it functions. Special revelation tells us who God is, why He created us, and what He requires of us. Because both come from the same God, they cannot ultimately contradict each other. Therefore, we should not use Scripture to deny what God has clearly revealed in creation, nor use nature to override what God has clearly revealed in Scripture. Each revelation has its proper domain, and both work together to give us a fuller understanding of God’s truth.

Sola Scriptura

The Bible should be our final authority for spiritual matters and wisdom. Just as scientists must follow the laws of physics, theologians must follow scripture. Ignoring these rules leads to problems in both science and faith. The concept that the Bible is the final authority for spiritual truth is known as Sola Scriptura.

The Catholic view of Sola Scriptura

However, Sola Scriptura, in my opinion, is either misused or denied on the basis of a faulty logic underlying its intent. Those who deny Sola Scriptura see it as a deterrent to unity by undermining authority. The Catholic church believed, and with some degree of truth, that if just any man could interpret the Bible for themselves, there would be dysfunction within the church.

Sola Scriptura started with Martin Luther. In his Ninety-five Theses, he questioned some church teachings and said the Pope should be under scripture, not above it. The Catholic Church, however, recognized that the Bible was not always clear or addressed every issue, so they believed that church authority was needed. Luther argued that church authority had gone too far and interfered with scripture. Still, he did not reject church authority; he rejected the idea that any church authority could stand above Scripture.

The Protestant view of Sola Scriptura

Sola Scriptura has morphed over the centuries into something it was never intended to be: an excuse for men to be their own ecclesiastical authority. While the Bible is the final authority, its interpretation is not an individual enterprise but a responsibility entrusted to the church’s recognized teachers and affirmed by the congregation. We see this in the book of Acts when Paul and Barnabas were in dispute with the Jews over how to apply the scripture to the Gentiles. The controversy was taken to a council in Jerusalem, where the church there decided how to handle the matter.

From my experience, I have seen that the Protestant church has abused Sola Scriptura. The abuse manifests itself in individuals claiming their interpretation of the scripture is the true one because they say it is what the Bible says, and the Bible is their authority. The Bible is the authority of all Christians, but the interpretation of scripture is not given to individuals. That includes church leaders. This was the heart of Martin Luther’s contest with the papacy. A verse that has been used to confront the controversy on both sides in 1 Timothy 3:15.

But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

1 Timothy 3:15

This verse is of great significance. The church’s responsibility is to uphold the truth. Calvin said this.

Now it is preserved on earth by the ministry of the Church alone. What a weight, therefore, rests on the pastors, who have been entrusted with the charge of so inestimable a treasure! With what impudent trifling do Papists argue from the words of Paul that all their absurdities ought to be held as oracles of God, because they are ‘the pillar of truth,’ and therefore cannot err!

https://biblehub.com/commentaries/calvin/1_timothy/3.htm

Should a senior pastor place himself as the sole authority on the truth? That is following the way of the papacy. But individuals should also not think they can determine the correct interpretation of scripture.  Jesus gave gifts to certain men who could be held responsible for upholding truth (Ephesians 4:11-13). But these, too, are not to be considered infallible. The body can call the teaching into question itself, as Paul commanded the Bereans (Acts 17:11).

Each individual must, for themselves, see whether what they have been taught is true, so it can lead to salvation. Therefore, they need to be able to question the leaders as Jesus did as a child. If their questions are not taken seriously and with respect, a division is created. I think the words of Calvin are worthy of repeating here: “What a weight, therefore, rests on the pastors, who have been entrusted with the charge of so inestimable a treasure!” Should the head of the church be so insecure that they are not willing to be questioned, and are they humble enough to reflect upon that which has been said?

Can the church be in error?

A question that needs to be addressed is whether the Church is in error. Can a church drift from a biblical position in its teaching or practice? I think the answer is obvious: we have denominations that have split from other branches over disagreements about the correct interpretation, and not all can be right. It would be a great act of arrogance for a church to think it could not have strayed in some way. The apostles wrote their epistles to prevent the churches from falling into error. Then we have Jesus’ rebuke of the churches in Revelation chapters two through three.

So, if that is true, how do we function as a church so that it is a pillar, upholding truth and not bringing it down through division? There must be a way for a church to maintain unity in interpretation while allowing members to raise questions without dismissing or alienating them.

What is the answer?

What follows is not a perfect solution, but a serious attempt at one. I have tried to demonstrate that the problem is real — that churches need a more honest and accountable approach to interpreting Scripture together. Let me break down what that might look like.

• The Bible is Sola Scriptura: We should agree that the bible is the final authority for spiritual matters. We have a physical world from which we can draw absolute truths, so we also have the Bible as our spiritual universe from which we can understand absolute spiritual truths (2 Timothy 3:16).
• How to handle interpretation: Truth claims must be tested and evaluated by people educated in their field of study, but they should also be open to questioning by the layperson, for the layperson has wisdom too (1 Corinthians 6:2-5).

The Bible is Sola Scriptura.

To address the first problem, I think we need to understand that the Bible is not a black-and-white book that clearly provides answers to every question man faces. Instead, it is a book of wisdom that, when understood correctly with the help of the Holy Spirit, will reveal what is right. Since humanity creates new problems or resurfaces old ones, the church must exercise due diligence to address them with coherent, rational answers.

A practical way of doing this is for a church to create articles of faith. Not simple statements that tell the people what the church believes, but lay out the reasons why they hold to a particular view. This method provides established teachings that can be offered to the person with questions without having to restate them every time. These articles of faith can also be used in a new member/convert class.

However, since these articles of faith are created by fallible men based on the infallible Word of God, they are subject to modification if there becomes a reasonable need to do so.

Example: The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy exemplifies the approach I am advocating. It was drafted by a council of approximately two hundred widely respected members. Importantly, the Statement itself explicitly acknowledges its limitations: “We acknowledge the limitations of a document prepared in a brief, intensive conference and do not propose that this Statement be given creedal weight” (Ligonier).

Furthermore, the Statement recognizes the need for ongoing revision: “We invite response to this statement from any who see reason to amend its affirmations about Scripture by the light of Scripture itself, under whose infallible authority we stand as we speak. We claim no personal infallibility for the witness we bear, and for any help which enables us to strengthen this testimony to God’s Word, we shall be grateful.”

https://learn.ligonier.org/articles/chicago-statement

This document should be held in high esteem and consulted when questions arise about biblical inerrancy. Criticism or dismissal should be reserved for circumstances where there is sufficient, peer-reviewed reasoning to support a change. To abandon the Statement without such consideration implies a claim to personal authority—precisely the issue the Statement seeks to address.

How to handle interpretation.

All men must humbly realize that they can be wrong and must then rely on other men to help them understand.

Where no counsel is, the people fall:
But in the multitude of counsellers there is safety.

Proverbs 11:14

Therefore, our Lord has given the church men as gifts to guide the body towards being complete in the Church.

And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

Ephesians 4:11–13

At the same time, we must recognize that no one man has the whole truth or is always correct in their understanding.

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

2 Peter 1:20–21

Peter’s point is that prophecy does not originate from the prophet’s own insight. And if the message did not begin with private interpretation, it should not end with it either. This passage speaks about the origin of prophecy, but it also implies a principle for readers: Scripture must be interpreted with the same dependence on God’s Spirit that produced it.

Statements of Faith can solve the problem.

Most churches have a statement of faith; some are so vague and simplistic as to reveal little truth. Most likely, that is done intentionally to avoid conflict. If that is the case, then doesn’t it place community more important than truth? I also suggest that concise statements of faith may cover the major theological topics, but still lack sufficient teaching to be profitable. Isn’t that similar to a parent telling a child to believe what they believe without explaining the reason, like saying, “Don’t ask questions; just do as I say.” These statements of faith are subject to the authority of scripture, but they also serve to be a transparent record of how a church understands scripture.

It would be difficult, if not impossible, for a pastor to address an individual’s questions about beliefs. Therefore, a thorough statement of faith that explains not only why the church believes what it does, but also why it believes it, becomes necessary. I also think it is important that the statement of faith does not simply defend the position, but honestly takes into account other views. This is important because a person might have been taught a different interpretation, and if their understanding is not honestly addressed, it will appear that the church is ignorant of other views, or that it believes it is so superior that other views have no value or truth.

These statements of faith should be created by chosen men in the church (Ephesians 4:11-13) and guided by the pastor. Once a final draft is created and prayed over, it can be presented to the church for final comments. The complete statements of faith could then be given to the questioner or used in new-member classes. It prevents having to state them repeatedly. They would also enhance the pastor’s ability to preach with clarity, as the sermon’s context is already understood. Many times, I have heard a pastor preach on a subject and was not sure what he really believed because I lacked the context for his understanding.

The following guidelines offer a practical framework for establishing articles of faith.

These steps can help a church or individual pursue truth faithfully and with accountability:

1. Establish Context (The “Who, Where, and Why”)

Before diving into the meaning, understand the background. Ask yourself:

• Original Audience: Who was this written or spoken to? What were their cultural problems or language nuances?
• Historical Setting: What was happening in the world at that time?
• Genre: Is this a poem, a historical account, a legal code, or a metaphor?

2. Observe the Plain Text (The “What”)

Read the concept or passage slowly and multiple times.

• Avoid “Eisegesis”: the trap of reading your own modern biases into the text. Focus only on what is actually written on the page.
• Define Terms: Look up key words in their original language (like Greek or Hebrew for the Bible) to see if the modern translation misses a layer of meaning.
• Surrounding Text: Read five verses before and after a specific quote to ensure it isn’t being taken out of context.

3. Seek Internal Consistency (The “Filter”) [11]

Truth shouldn’t contradict itself. Use a cross-referencing approach:

• Does this specific idea match the overall theme of the rest of the belief system?
• If your interpretation of one verse contradicts five other “clearer” verses, your interpretation of that one verse is likely wrong.

4. Test for Reality (The “So What?”)

A truth should be experientially relevant—it should work in real life.

• Empirical Adequacy: Does this concept align with what we know about how the universe actually works?
• Transformation: Does understanding this concept lead to a change in character or action? In many traditions, “obedience brings discernment”.

5. Consult and Challenge

• Multiple Perspectives: Examine how different denominations, or even skeptics, view the same concept. This can highlight your own “blind spots”.
• Be Willing to Change: The goal is truth, not being right. Be “like a sponge” and stay open to letting go of previously held traditions if they don’t hold up to scrutiny.

Final words

I hope I have made a sound argument for the diversity of interpretation among those who hold to Sola Scriptura. I also desire that we do not deviate from holding scripture as the final authority, while at the same time recognizing the need for additional authority for interpretation. It is easy for those who hold to Sola Scriptura to fall into the same mindset that Martin Luther had protested against, namely, individuals, Popes, pastors, teachers, or individual members placing their interpretation above scripture.

I also hope that my suggestion on how to best resolve, or at least alleviate, some of the tension between interpretation and Christians’ right to check the leadership has been helpful and worth considering. Extensive statements of faith seem like a good way to clearly articulate the church’s beliefs, reduce misunderstandings, and foster unity. Truth matters — and it is only when we correctly and humbly apply scripture together that the results God desires will actually be accomplished.