I’ll go with scriptures alone, @bdavidc
Scripture itself distinguishes between what God is in Himself and how He makes Himself known. No one has ever seen God, as John writes, yet the only-begotten Son has made Him known (John 1:18). Paul affirms that God dwells in unapproachable light whom no man has seen or can see (1 Timothy 6:16), and yet the same God is the One in whom we live and move and have our being (Acts 17:28). These passages together show that while God is infinitely beyond the grasp of the creature, He also truly acts within creation and makes Himself known in a real and personal way. When Moses asked to see God’s glory, he was told, “You cannot see My face, for man shall not see Me and live,” but he was permitted to see the “back” of the Lord as He passed by (Exodus 33:20–23). That narrative already expresses a pattern found throughout Scripture: the inner life of God remains hidden, yet His presence, His glory, and His works are genuinely manifest and accessible. In this sense, when we experience God’s grace, when His Spirit works in us to will and to act according to His good pleasure (Philippians 2:13), we truly encounter God Himself. It is not that we comprehend all that He is, but that He gives of Himself to us in a way we can receive. Peter speaks of believers becoming “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4), which does not mean that we become what God is in His own being, but that we share in His holiness, His life, and His presence through the indwelling of the Spirit. This keeps both truths of Scripture together. God remains infinitely exalted, yet He is personally near. He is never absorbed into the world, yet He truly acts within it. When Christ was transfigured and His face shone like the sun, the disciples beheld the glory of God without ceasing to see the man Jesus. They did not see the invisible nature of God, but the radiance of His majesty revealed in the Son. Therefore, what I have tried to describe is not a philosophical invention but a biblical observation: that God, while remaining beyond all created understanding, truly communicates Himself to His creatures. We do not know everything about God, yet we truly know Him through His works, His Spirit, and His Word. As Deuteronomy says, “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children” (Deuteronomy 29:29). Revelation and mystery are both affirmed by Scripture. In that sense, exploring how God’s presence can be both utterly transcendent and yet personally experienced is not an attempt to change revelation, but to remain faithful to what Scripture itself teaches, that He is both the high and lofty One who inhabits eternity and the One who dwells with the contrite and humble of heart (Isaiah 57:15).
@bdavidc
If God is Truth (which He is), then all genuine truths, scientific, mathematical, or theological, must ultimately converge. Truth cannot contradict Truth; the true supports the true.
Do you believe in the Holy Trinity?
There are Three Divine Persons or Hypostases of one indivisible Essence or Being.
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, of all things seen and unseen. And one Lord Jesus Christ, only-begotten Son of the Father. Begotten, not made; of the same Being as the Father, God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God. And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Light who proceeds from the Father [and the Son], who with the Father and the Son is to be worshiped and glorified.
If you believe this, then you already accept using language that the Bible doesn’t explicitly use to refer to biblical ideas and teachings.
It appears you are simply trying to be combative for the sake of being combative.
@bdavidc
At your prompting, I went back and re-read what @TheologyNerd wrote, and I must say, I do not read what he said in the same negative light as you do. I did not see any evidence of:
or:
nor do I see any attempt of:
I’m really saddened that you recieved this post this way. I stand by my original assesment. The work of The Holy Spirit is unity, as is the work of those who walk in the Spirit, and not in the flesh.
Peace in Jesus, the unifier of His body.
KP
@bdavidcx ,
Let us take the example that @TheologyNerd just provided regarding the Trinity. The Church teaches there are three distinct Persons in one indivisible Being. The terms Trinity and Hypostases are not found explicitly in Scripture. Yet without them, the biblical testimony to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit risks being misunderstood or distorted into heresies such as Arianism, which denied the full divinity of Christ, or Sabellianism, which collapses the Persons into one. In this way, theological language, though not directly scriptural, serves a clarifying function: it preserves the revealed truth against misunderstanding.
Similarly, the distinction between God’s inner life and His operations in creation emerged to resolve a profound paradox in Scripture. Scripture repeatedly reveals God as utterly transcendent, incomprehensible, and unchangeable, yet simultaneously active and present in the world. Without careful conceptual tools, one risks either collapsing God into creation, as pantheism does, or making Him entirely inaccessible, as abstract deism would. The Fathers, particularly Palamas, formulated this distinction not to invent new doctrines, but to safeguard the truths already revealed: God’s inner being remains wholly hidden, yet His actions truly touch, transform, and deify creation. This distinction thus protects divine unity while affirming real communion. Just as the Church relied on precise theological language to articulate the Trinity faithfully, it relied on this distinction to articulate God’s immanence without compromising transcendence. It was not speculative fancy but was a pastoral and doctrinal necessity.
Scripture alone is the authority, but faithful interpretation often requires disciplined reasoning to express what Scripture reveals in coherent, doctrinally safe terms. The goal is always the same, that is to make the mysteries of God accessible to human understanding while remaining faithful to the divine revelation.
Friends:
Just a reminder of what our Father has said to us:
1 Corinthians 12
Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I do not want you to be ignorant: You know that you were Gentiles, carried away to these dumb idols, however you were led. Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed, and no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.
There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. There are differences of ministries, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of activities, but it is the same God who works all in all. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all: for to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge through the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healings by the same Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another different kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills.
For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit. For in fact the body is not one member but many.
If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I am not of the body,” is it therefore not of the body? And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I am not of the body,” is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where would be the smelling? But now God has set the members, each one of them, in the body just as He pleased. And if they were all one member, where would the body be?
But now indeed there are many members, yet one body. And the eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you”; nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” No, much rather, those members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary. And those members of the body which we think to be less honorable, on these we bestow greater honor; and our unpresentable parts have greater modesty, but our presentable parts have no need. But God composed the body, having given greater honor to that part which lacks it, that there should be no schism in the body, but that the members should have the same care for one another. And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; or if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it.
Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually.
kp
No, you’re not going with Scripture alone, not even close. You’re combining Scripture with philosophy and calling it theology. You take verses as a starting point, and then you start grafting in ideas the Bible never teaches, like “what God is in Himself” as opposed to “how He makes Himself known.” Scripture never divides up God’s being like that. The Word of God says plainly, “The LORD our God, the LORD is one” (Deuteronomy 6:4). God does not reveal Himself in essences and levels of appearance. He reveals Himself in His Word and in His Son.
You also speak of “the inner life of God, hidden from view” as opposed to His “glory is manifest.” The Bible never speaks of an “inner life” of God. That’s not revelation, that’s philosophy. When God revealed His glory to Moses in Exodus 33, it was not a lesser form of Himself He was withholding, it was the same LORD declaring His name and His mercy. There is no distinction between who God is and how God acts.
Then you quote 2 Peter 1: 4 about us being “partakers of the divine nature”, but Peter tells you what that means, “escaping the corruption that is in the world through lust.” That does not mean we share in God’s being, it means we share in His holiness. The passage does not teach that believers somehow participate in God’s nature; it teaches moral transformation by the Holy Spirit.
And when you conclude by “exploring how God’s presence can be both transcendent and yet personally experienced,” that’s not exegesis, that’s philosophy. The apostles didn’t speculate on transcendence, they proclaimed Christ, the fullness of God’s revelation (John 14:9). Paul warned against this very thing: “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit… and not after Christ” (Colossians 2:8). Exactly what you are doing.
You’re quoting Scripture, but you’re using it to construct something the Bible never constructs. That’s not going with Scripture alone, that’s twisting it.
Discernment isn’t “negative.” It’s commanded. Scripture says, “Test the spirits whether they are of God, because many false prophets are gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1). When someone teaches a view of God that goes beyond what’s written, it’s not unity, it’s deception.
You say the Spirit’s work is unity. That’s true, but unity in truth, not unity at the expense of it. Jesus prayed “that they may be one,” but also said, “Sanctify them through Thy truth; Thy word is truth” (John 17:17, 21). The Holy Spirit never unites believers by overlooking error, He unites them by revealing truth.
When someone blends philosophy with Scripture, divides God’s being into “hidden essence” and “revealed energies,” or redefines biblical terms, that’s not Spirit-led unity, that’s confusion. And “God is not the author of confusion” (1 Corinthians 14:33).
So yes, peace in Jesus, but never peace that sacrifices truth. Real unity is built on the Word rightly divided (2 Timothy 2:15), not rewritten.
@bdavidc
I hear you, I accept your caution. I accept everything you have written in this (your most recent) post. I appreciate your devotion to The Truth.
KP
@bdavidc
You quote Deuteronomy 6:4 to affirm God’s oneness, and rightly so. Yet consider the passages that speak of God’s activity and presence in ways that distinguish His transcendent being from His action: Exodus 33:18-23 shows Moses seeing God’s glory, but God tells him, “You cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live.” Psalm 145:18 says, “The Lord is near to all who call on him.” Isaiah 6:1-5 depicts the vision of the Lord’s glory in the temple, yet the seraphim proclaim His holiness. Similarly, 2 Peter 1:4 says we become “partakers of the divine nature” by escaping corruption. Romans 8:9-11 teaches the Spirit of God dwells in believers, making them alive even though their bodies are mortal. John 14:23 says, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.” These passages show God is both transcendent and intimately active, making Himself known without diminishing His oneness. Scripture itself differentiates between God’s unapproachable majesty and His revealed, saving presence.
In the above passage, which I wrote now, not the prev ones, find one instance where I have “added philosophy” rather than faithfully observing Scripture’s own distinctions between God’s majesty and His revealed presence
No, I’m not being combative, I’m being biblical. You quoted a creed, not Scripture. The difference matters. The Bible is inspired; creeds aren’t.
Yes, I believe in the triune nature of God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, because Scripture teaches it, not because some council wrapped it in philosophy. Jesus said, “Go therefore and baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19). That’s enough for me.
But when you say, “We use language the Bible doesn’t explicitly use,” that’s where we part ways. There is no we here. It’s not me and tradition. It’s not me and church fathers. It’s me and the Bible. Every false system starts with, “Well, we just added a few words to clarify.” God doesn’t need man’s edits. Paul warned, “Learn not to go beyond what is written” (1 Corinthians 4:6). What part of that don’t you understand? That’s the line, and I’m staying on the Bible’s side of it.
I don’t need terms like “hypostases” or “essence” to explain what the Word already makes plain. God’s Word doesn’t need polishing, it needs believing. And calling biblical correction “combative” doesn’t change the fact that Scripture alone is the authority, not your creed.
And yes, the Bible commands us to expose false teaching. “Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them” (Ephesians 5:11). Paul said to mark those who teach contrary to sound doctrine (Romans 16: 17), and Peter warned about “false teachers who secretly bring in destructive heresies” (2 Peter 2:1).
Truth doesn’t fear exposure, error does. I’m not dividing the body because false teachers are not part of the body. I’m obeying the Bible.
@bdavidc
You insist that terms like “hypostases” or distinctions in God’s life are unnecessary, but what you are really doing is ignoring a serious biblical tension that the Apostles themselves addressed. Let me show why.
Scripture affirms that God is one (Deuteronomy 6:4) yet also reveals the Father, the Son, and the Spirit as distinct persons who relate to one another (Matthew 28:19, John 14:16-17, John 1:1-3, Colossians 2:9). Paul prays to the Father through the Son (Ephesians 3:14-17), yet also proclaims Christ’s full deity (Philippians 2:6-11). John describes the Spirit as the Lord who proceeds from the Father and testifies of Christ (John 15:26). Without careful language, Scripture can be misread to support modalism, where God is merely a single person appearing in three forms, or subordinationism, where the Son and Spirit are seen as lesser than the Father. These are precisely the errors the Church Fathers labored to prevent, errors that Scripture itself exposes when read without discernment (1 John 4:1, 2 Peter 2:1).
Scripture declares that we are called to be “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4) and that Christ dwells in believers (Galatians 2:20; Romans 8:9-11). Without careful theological articulation, this can be misread as pantheism, imagining God is spread into all things, or as polytheism, imagining multiple independent gods. The text itself warns us against misconstruing God’s work and nature (Romans 1:21-25; Colossians 2:8). The Fathers’ distinction was not invention; it safeguarded the teaching that God remains transcendent, utterly other, yet truly present in salvation and sanctification.
God is both transcendent and immanent (Isaiah 6:1-5; Exodus 33:18-23). He is ungraspable in His glory yet fully revealed in Christ (John 14:9). Scripture presents this tension clearly: He cannot be contained by creation (Jeremiah 23:24), yet He promises to dwell in us by His Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19; John 14:17). Denying or ignoring this dual reality leads to two extremes: either God becomes an inaccessible abstraction, or He becomes a mere part of creation. Both are heretical outcomes, and Scripture itself warns against them. Scripture repeatedly calls us to discern truth and reject error. “Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them” (Ephesians 5:11). “Mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned, and avoid them” (Romans 16:17). “But there were false prophets also among the people… even denying the Lord that bought them” (2 Peter 2:1). The challenge is clear: without careful articulation, even Scripture can be misunderstood, leading the faithful into error.
Show me one verse where Scripture teaches that modalism, subordinationism, pantheism, or denial of the relational distinctions within the Godhead is correct. If you cannot, then recognize why careful theological language is necessary, not as philosophy, not as invention, but as guardrails to preserve the truth that Scripture reveals. This is not going beyond Scripture; it is going with Scripture, against heresy.
Here’s where the philosophy comes in, not in the verses you quoted, but in how you relate them. The passages you selected are all true in themselves, but the inference you make, that Scripture itself “draws a distinction between God’s transcendent being and His revealed presence”, that is not in black-and-white anywhere. It is something you brought to the verses, to help you interpret them.
Exodus 33 does not partition God’s being, it describes His gracious condescension shielding Moses from death. Psalm 145: 18 does not contrast God’s essence with His presence, it states simply that He is near to those who call on Him. Isaiah 6 does not portray two levels of divine reality but the holiness and glory of God Himself. Romans 8 and John 14 portray the same Spirit dwelling in the believer, not an approachable aspect of God distinguished from His “unapproachable glory.”
In short: your verses are true, but your conclusion erects a system Scripture does not erect. That’s what I mean by “adding philosophy.” The Bible portrays what God does, it does not graph how His nature functions behind the scenes.
To summarize: you didn’t make up the verses, but you did interpose a framework those verses do not teach. That is the difference between faithfully heeding Scripture and philosophizing about it.
What makes it look biblical on the surface is the quoting of verses. The problem comes in how they’re joined together. The passages you quote all depict the same one God acting in various manners. They don’t indicate two concentric modes of being that exist within the Godhead.
Exodus 33: 19-23: God hides Moses from death; He does not split Himself into “transcendent essence” and “manifest presence.”
Psalm 145:18: God is near to those who call upon Him; it does not refer to an accessible part of God and an inaccessible part of God.
Isaiah 6:1, Romans 8:16, John 14:17: These are not different or complementary modes of God but the same LORD revealing Himself in both His Spirit and in His Word.
None of these passages support the idea that we can divide up the LORD’s being into some that are “unapproachable” and some that are “revealed.”
So yes, your verses are correct, but your association of them smuggles in a structure that the Bible never states. That’s where the philosophy comes in: an attempt to conceptualize and explain the “how” of God’s transcendence and nearness. Scripture gives the truth to believe, but philosophy tries to explain the process, something God never asked us to do.
The Bible ends it with this: “The LORD our God is one” (Deuteronomy 6:4). Everything else is God showing Himself to us, not us trying to take Him apart and analyze Him.
The issue isn’t that the Bible lacks clarity, it’s that you think it’s in need of your guardrails.
It’s true that the Bible teaches the Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct and divine. But the Bible also teaches they are one God (Deuteronomy 6:4; Matthew 28:19; John 10:30). That’s not “tension,” that’s revelation. The apostles didn’t need the concepts of hypostases to keep the truth straight, they just quoted the Word and believed it.
You say the Fathers had to make these distinctions to “safeguard” doctrine. But Scripture doesn’t need men to safeguard it. It safeguards itself. Every heresy you listed, modalism, subordinationism, pantheism, falls apart under the plain text of Scripture alone. When Jesus said, “Before Abraham was, I AM” (John 8:58), that takes care of subordinationism. When He prayed to the Father (John 17: 1) and sent the Spirit (John 14:16–17), that debunks modalism. When Paul said, “God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself” (2 Corinthians 5:19), that shuts down pantheism.
So no, we don’t need “careful theological articulation” beyond Scripture. We just need to read what it says and quit adding systems to explain what God left as mystery. The Word of God is sharper than any two-edged sword (Hebrews 4: 12); it doesn’t need to be fenced in by man’s definitions.
You quote verses about exposing error, and I agree. That’s exactly what I’m doing here. The error isn’t in Scripture; it’s in men thinking the Bible needs philosophy to make sense. Truth doesn’t need your support system, it stands fine on its own.
The distinction often discussed in patristic theology, between God’s incomprehensible being and His manifested operations, is never meant to divide the Trinity itself. Scripture teaches clearly that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are fully God, co-equal, and co-eternal (Matthew 28:19; John 1:1; Acts 5:3-4). There is no hierarchy of “essence” and “energy” within the Godhead. To suggest otherwise would be to introduce a heresy, contradicting the biblical witness of one God in three Persons. The point of the distinction is soteriological and epistemic, not ontological within the Godhead. God’s essence remains beyond human comprehension, yet He is truly present and active in creation and revelation. For example, Exodus 33:18-23 emphasizes that Moses cannot see God’s face and live, yet God still reveals His name and His mercy. Psalm 145:18 affirms that God is near to those who call on Him. John 14:16-17 describes the Spirit dwelling in believers. These passages illustrate that humans experience God’s operative presence without comprehending His total being. So to be clear: the distinction is not “tiers” inside the Trinity. It is Scripture’s way of expressing the biblical tension between God’s infinite, hidden being and His accessible, revealed activity. Scripture itself never fragments God. Any discussion of “essence” and “energies” within Godhead must be rejected if it implies division, because the Bible repeatedly affirms the unity and indivisibility of God (Deuteronomy 6:4; 1 Timothy 2:5).
Next,
Let us examine the verses carefully.
- Exodus 33:19-23 – Scripture says God will show Moses His goodness while hiding him in the cleft of the rock so he does not see His face. The text explicitly distinguishes between what Moses can experience and what is hidden. Scripture itself contrasts God’s presence, which is accessible, with God’s full glory, which is lethal to humans (Exodus 33:20). This is not speculative; it is the Bible describing a real tension between God’s revealed actions and His incomprehensible majesty.
- Psalm 145:18 – “The Lord is near to all who call on Him, to all who call on Him in truth.” Here, nearness is conditional and relational. Scripture emphasizes that God is present to His people, yet He is infinitely greater than our comprehension (Isaiah 55:8-9). The text itself implies that His nearness does not exhaust His being.
- Isaiah 6:1-5 – Isaiah sees the LORD seated on a high and exalted throne; the seraphim cover their faces and call “Holy, holy, holy.” The prophet perceives both God’s glory and his own inadequacy, revealing a tension between God’s immanent action in the world and His incomprehensible holiness. The text highlights both revelation and hiddenness.
- Romans 8:16-17; John 14:17 – The Spirit dwells in believers, testifying to our adoption as children. Scripture teaches that God is actively present in our lives, yet even the Spirit does not exhaust God’s being. Paul never suggests that the Spirit is all of God, nor that God’s full majesty is accessible; Scripture itself maintains that God’s glory is hidden (1 Timothy 6:16).
The point is that Scripture repeatedly sets up a biblical tension: God is fully one, yet His ways of acting, revealing, and being known to creation are distinguished from His incomprehensible self. This is precisely what the Church Fathers sought to safeguard in clarifying against modalism, subordinationism, or pantheistic readings. They did not invent divisions; they used careful language to prevent heresy while remaining fully faithful to Scripture.
Show a single verse where Scripture teaches that God’s nearness, the indwelling Spirit, or His revelation to prophets exhausts or equals His full being. You cannot, because Scripture consistently portrays a tension between God’s action and His incomprehensible reality (Exodus 33:18-23; Isaiah 55:8-9; 1 Timothy 6:16). To deny this tension is to ignore what Scripture explicitly presents.
Brother, this is not philosophy; this is called careful exegesis.
Peace
Sam
No, this is not “careful exegesis.” This is you creating a system the Scripture never states and then calling the gap between your system and the text “tension.” The Bible does not cut God into two halves. It presents one God, Who acts, speaks, saves, and dwells with His people. He is never in the text sliced into “incomprehensible essence” on one hand and “manifested operations” on the other.
Exodus 33 does not teach layer in God. It teaches God’s mercy shielding a frail man from dying in God’s unveiled presence. That is the Creator-creature limit, not a divided God.
Psalm 145:18 teaches relational nearness for those who call on Him. It does not speak of an “operation” that is accessible versus an “essence” that is not.
Isaiah 6 is God’s holiness making a man aware of his sin. Creaturely limitation, not a two-tiered God.
1 Timothy 6:16 tells us God dwells in unapproachable light. Amen. But that does not institute two modes of God. It declares God is holy and we are not.
2 Peter 1:4 tells us we partake of the divine nature by not being conformed to corruption. Peter explains the result in moral terms, not ontological ones. Holiness, not hypostases.
Rom 8 and John 14 teach the Spirit truly dwells in the believer. Scripture does not say the Spirit is a slice of God or that He is partitioned from the Father and Son. It says “the Spirit is life” and “we will make our home with him.” Personal presence, not metaphysical partition.
You demanded a verse that says God’s nearness exhausts His being. I never said that. I am only saying that your framework is not in the text. Now produce one verse that divides God into “what He is in Himself” on one hand and “how He acts” on the other. One verse. No implication. No later fathers. Chapter and verse.
Scripture calls what you are doing “going beyond what is written” (1 Corinthians 4: 6) and being “taken captive by philosophy” (Colossians 2:8). Scripture gives us revelation, and you are trying to map the mechanics. The Bible’s testimony about the Son is sufficient: “In Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily” (Colossians 2:9). “He is the exact imprint of His nature” (Hebrews 1:3). “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). That is not a God divided in parts. That is God revealed in the Son.
I will stay with what is written. One LORD. One God. Fully revealed for salvation in Christ. No extra categories are needed.
You need to put the theology books down for a bit and just open your Bible. All this man-made systems you keep quoting are what’s messing you up.
The Word of God is simple when you just read it for what it says. The apostles didn’t write in philosophical systems or “distinctions.” They preached Christ, crucified and risen. The more you pursue man’s definitions, the more you drift from the simplicity that’s in Christ (2 Corinthians 11:3).
Start fresh with Scripture alone. Read it, believe it, obey it. Let the Bible interpret itself. If your “deep insights” can’t be said in the plain words of Scripture, they don’t belong.
Sometimes the most spiritual thing a person can do is stop overthinking and start believing what’s written is true.
Let’s start more basic.
Without relying on tradition, language, words, ideas, or human testimony outside the explicit words found in the books of the Bible, and you articulate which books belong in the Bible and which don’t?
Or let’s offer a specific example. Is the Gospel of Mark Scripture? And without relying any extra-biblical argument, can you explain why Mark is Scripture?
I think this important so we can ground the conversation more simply–or more to the point: That Sola Scriptura can’t exist without the larger framework of a cohesive historic Christian faith. Because the very existence of the Bible depends on a living community of believers to receive and confess certain books as being God’s word. We don’t make Scripture inspired, but the only way we can know what is inspired is because we believe what has been given to us from our spiritual forebearers. The same spiritual forebearers who wrote the Creeds, which you have summarily rejected.
hmmm @bdavidc
But distinction is not division.
Brother, your concern touches a crucial issue, but it contains a hidden assumption that must be exposed. You are treating the authority of Scripture as dependent on the community that received it, rather than on the divine breath that produced it. Correct me if I’m wrong here-Scripture is not Scripture because the Church recognized it; the Church recognized it because it was already Scripture. The Church is the witness, not the source. The Word of God creates the Church, not the other way around.
Paul says that “all Scripture is God-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16). Notice that the inspiration precedes reception. The prophetic writings were sacred long before any council or creed confirmed them. The early believers did not confer authority upon the text; they bowed before the authority that spoke through it. When the Bereans examined the Scriptures daily to test the apostles’ words (Acts 17:11), they did not appeal to a creed or to ecclesial consensus, but to the already recognized Word of God.
It is true that the canon was recognized within the believing community, but that community’s role was one of discernment, not origination. The process was historical, but the authority was divine. God’s Word is self-authenticating, bearing its own testimony through the Spirit who inspired it. As Jesus said, “My sheep hear My voice” (John 10:27). The recognition of Scripture was an act of hearing, not of legislating.
Regarding the creeds, they are valuable as historical expressions of faith, but they are not coequal with Scripture. The same fathers who formulated the creeds also submitted their teaching to the authority of the written Word. When tested by that Word, the creeds stand or fall. The apostles gave us no creed beyond “Jesus is Lord” (Romans 10:9), and even that confession rests upon Scripture’s witness to His person and work.
If Sola Scriptura depends on a “larger framework,” it is not the framework of ecclesial authority, but the framework of divine revelation and Spirit-led recognition. The Church’s unity is not the source of Scripture’s truth; it is the fruit of Scripture’s truth believed and obeyed. The moment you make the community the ground of certainty, you make man the guarantor of revelation and replace the living Word with human tradition.
The canon was not built by consensus; it was recognized through providence. The creeds were not inspired; they were attempts to defend what Scripture already revealed. The faith of our forefathers is precious, but it stands under the Word, not above it. The same Spirit who inspired the prophets and apostles bears witness within believers today that this Word is truth (John 16:13). That is why Sola Scriptura remains not an isolated doctrine, but the very confession that God speaks, and His voice needs no validation from the councils of men.
Would you agree @TheologyNerd ?
J.
That question is a classic attempt to frame the truth on a false premise: that man, rather than God, is the one who determines what is and what is not Scripture. Scripture, however, is clear that it is God alone who breathes out His Word and not what man can determine. “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Timothy 3:16). The word “inspiration” is theopneustos in Greek which means, literally, “God-breathed.” Scripture does not say “this collection of books became Scripture at this point in history when a council determined they should be included.” No. It simply is God-breathed from the time that the Holy Spirit moved the original writers to both speak and record those words. “Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21). The Greek word for “moved” (pheromenoi) is literally “carried along,” such as a ship that is being carried along by the wind. It is the same Spirit who breathed out the original writing who also providentially preserved and testified to those words.
Jesus, during His earthly ministry, verified the Old Testament as Scripture by saying such things as, “It is written” (Matthew 4: 4) and “the Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35). He treated Moses, the prophets, and the Psalms as the inspired Word of God (Luke 24:44). After Jesus’ ascension, the apostles wrote with the same authority of the Old Testament, as both Peter and Paul were considered authoritative by the other (2 Peter 3:15–16). Peter called Paul’s letters “Scripture” using the very same word, graphē, which is used for the sacred writings in the Old Testament. Even within the pages of the Bible, Scripture is self-authenticating. The Holy Spirit bears witness to His own Word, just as Jesus said, “My sheep hear My voice” (John 10:27).
The Gospel of Mark belongs to this same category. It is the written testimony of the Gospel which Jesus Himself preached (Mark 1: 1), but now it was being recorded by a man who was not making up words but was writing what was already “the Word of God” (1 Thessalonians 2:13). The authority of Mark’s Gospel is not found in the church’s recognition of it, but in God breathing it. The recognition came because the same Spirit who authored the Gospel breathed it out to the hearts of the faithful as God’s living and active Word. “The Spirit Himself bears witness” (Romans 8:16).
Sola Scriptura, therefore, does not stand on the shoulders of tradition. It stands on the self-authenticating nature of God’s Word and the Spirit’s witness to this truth. The canon of Scripture was not created by man; it was recognized by those who heard the Shepherd’s voice as He spoke through the Scriptures He breathed out.
I suppose I’m coming from this from the perspective that yes, Sola Scriptura; that is Scripture is the singularly divinely inspired infallible source and rule of faith. But Sola Scriptura is not the negation of derived authority, i.e. the Church/tradition.
There is clearly some kind of interplay between the divinely inspired text and the believing community. I could not know what the Bible is unless there were believing, faithful Christians who received, confessed, believed, and recognized these texts as divinely inspired. This does not make the Church divinely inspired; though the Church does have the Gift of the Holy Spirit. The Church is not infallible, but the Church is called to faithful reception, confession, and transmission of the truth. And in that sense tradition becomes an essential dimension of the historic Christian faith.
I can’t pick up a Bible and, all on my own, expect to know everything. I need good, faithful Christians to pass on, teach, encourage, instruct, and guide. That’s why Jesus called and sent out apostles; it’s why the apostles ordained pastors, it’s why Scripture itself attests to the necessity of holding firm to the faith, to hold firm to what was given in the beginning.
I can’t know the Gospel of Mark is Scripture unless there were believing Christians who have recognized and confessed that this was the case, and they have transmitted this to me. Or to put it another way, I can know that the books I receive in Holy Scripture are faithful and true, and truly the word of God, not because the Church said so; but because the Church has confessed so. It’s not Church over Scripture; it’s Scripture over Church–but it still requires the Church to be there to receive, to believe, to confess.
I don’t have to look through a bunch of ancient books and figure out for myself what is and isn’t Scripture. I can go, pick up a Bible, and confidently confess that these books are holy and divinely inspired. And the only way I can do that is because this has been confessed and believed since the beginning.
The Canon is, therefore, as much a thing received and confessed as the Creeds. The divinely inspired texts do not, themselves, tell us with specificity what is and isn’t Canonical. So there is always some kind of interplay: between the divinely inspired gift and the divinely called recipients of that gift.
As someone who has spent a lot of time studying the history and evolution of the Biblical Canon, it’s very clear to me that the history of the Canon is complicated. It’s also just a simple fact that no where did God say “These are the sacred books which I have inspired: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus … Jude, Revelation” So that leaves us with this: The Canon is Tradition. Though the Canon contains Holy Scripture. I don’t see an alternative that is intellectually and historically honest.