But on a further note, few non-professional teachers bother with doctrine and theology, which is sad and harmful.

But I wouldn’t call the radically Biblicist view “pomo” or “skeptical.” It’s actually sort of anti-pomo, because it misses the importance of the community in understanding and applying the text.

Steve Sensing, you raise a good point as well, but it’s a different point. The point here is how do we define the “community” that receives the text, and what does it mean to speak with “authority” in the community?

I agree with you that a “professional” has no authority by virtue of his or her “credentials” to speak authoritatively, and that each individual believer has a responsibility to listen to what the Spirit is saying to him or her-self about the text.

But that said, there is no room for a radical individualism that recognizes no authority of any sort in the Church. Scripture itself makes plain that some are particularly gifted by the Spirit as teachers, and that some (ideally the same who are gifted as teachers) are appointed to be elders or “overseers.” Scripture itself expects us within particular communities of the Church to submit to the authority of these God-gifted and appointed leaders and to learn from them.

This doesn’t mean such leaders speak with the same authority as Jesus or the scriputres themselves; they are fallible and we are instructed to test everything. Nevertheless, even in their fallibility, we are to afford them proper respect.

And the problem, as I see it, with your view is the false dichotomy between “proper interpretation and application” by a preacher, and “every person’s own opinion”.

What’s the point of believers being filled with the Holy Spirit if they still need a “professional” to tell them what God is really saying?

(I know that’s a bit off-topic, Michael, but I had trouble watching this one go by without throwing my two cents in!)

Now I agree with you that no sermon is ever inspired in the “verbal plenary*” sense that Scripture is. But I believe it can carry Scripture’s authority and demands obedience in the same way as the inspired texts (but only because of the text being the main ingredient).

But the fact that you are using the uniqueness of Scripture (a doctrine in theology books) to uphold your view shows that you believe some doctrines must be pulled out of Scripture that are never “directly” spoken of to uphold the full and accurate view of Scripture. The closed canon is another, we are never told directly it will close, we just see all the post apostolic authors “stunk” at the doctrines and applications of the first generation writers. None of their documents “radiate”. Closed canon is your underlying assumption in this post, and it is not “biblically authoritative” according to you.

The Trinity is the same way. We both believe that these are important doctrines that “demand” our belief in them, though most of the information we have on them comes from outside sources. Now are the “two natures one Person” arguments on Christology in Scripture? No. But should we believe in them? Yes. Why? They are biblically necessary. Now are such doctrines a failure? Should we have nothing to say as preachers on abortion? Since Scripture doesn’t use the word “abortion” should we not be held to act any certain way towards it?

Now these sermon/books/etc aren’t “inspired” directly, but they are withdrawn from the inpsired writings and demand obedience by their vital connection to that body.

So I agree with your definitions many times of the uniqueness of Scripture, but the applications you draw from it you don’t hold, nor should we in that form hold them. They would lead to too much skepticism by laity and an emphasis too strongly on the “regulative principle” by leaders.

But that’s my pomo, skeptical view.

Here’s where I disagree: I think you’re missing something in how the Holy Spirit and the Church interact with scripture, and in missing that I think you’re adopting the same Biblicist stance as the “Biblical [fill in the blank"]” book authors.

We should understand the process of understanding and applying the scriptures as the Holy Spirit speaking to and through the Church through the text. Scripture in some sense is a living text as it is intepreted and applied to contemporary circumstances by the Church as led by the Spirit. Stan Grenz and John Franke have developed this theme very well in their books. Of course, scripture itself remains primary, or as Grenz says, scripture is the Church’s “norming norm.” But “sola scriptura” doesn’t mean “the text in isolation,” as even the Westminster Confession makes clear.

So, all that is to say that at least some of the work being done by theologians today represents the means by which the Spirit is speaking to and through the Church via the text of scripture. We can thresh out lots of chaff being produced under the guise of “Biblical” this or that, but there’s no substitute for reading deep and wide in serious theological literature.

So let me get this straight.

>Our entire conversation about God, including that conversation that occurs in books of “Biblical” theology, parenting, marriage, self-help, history politics, psychology, finance, economics, politics, science, art, music, church growth, evangelism and so on, is NOT INSPIRED or AUTHORITATIVE.

You believe that Macarthur is inspired and authoritative? I didn’t say the Bible he quotes, reads, explains, but his words, his explanations, his outline, etc?

If you think this is skepticism then I’d politely disagree. I have a library of useful books and I’ve preached about 3000 sermons so far. But none of them were equal to the Bible.

Statements of truth are authoritative. I’m not denying the existence of truth. I’m saying that when your pastor preaches on Obadiah and tells you to give to the building program he isn’t saying that with the authority of scripture or of God.

PS What is a “pomo”?