Just when you think you've heard it all and seen it all someone comes up with this novel idea:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QOyLtjEGupc

What can I say exept, Jesus wept” (Joh 11.35).  I hope you did not lose too may neurons from watching that toxic trash!  The real “hell” here is enduring this 2 minute+ video!  And as if the video were not atrocious enough, there's a book by the same title to go with it (it's on sale @ amazon.com; it has one review, 1/5, the person wanted to give it a “0” but the scale only goes down to “1”).  

Well, my main concern is not so much with the foolishness of this message as with this message making Christians—and Evanglicals in particular—look foolish.  I wish that the folks who put out this stuff would identify themselves with some other deity.  Scripture teaches that in heaven there will be no “...cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and...liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.” (Revelation 21.8).  Surely, “raving spiritual lunatics” are implied in that list somewhere.

My chief concern, however, is with my Christian brothers and sisters in denominational communities which use this video and accompanying book as a cause to refute the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.  Now, if you're not familiar with this phrase it means “Scripture Alone.”  It was one of the five principle tenets of the 16th century Reformation.  It simply means that Scripture alone is authoritative.  In other words, some folks—singularly or in groups (e.g., councils and synods)—may have some very good and wise things to say, but only the writings from Scripture are the word of God.

For instance, I am a fan of Father Ernesto Obregón, the Orthodox priest who, like me, is from Cuba.  In a recent blog titled “A somewhat logical result of the Protestant Reformation” he includes this video and argues that,

Videos, such as the one above, are helpful in reinforcing the necessity of accepting the witness of the Early Church Fathers. When one rejects the Early Church Fathers but tries to retain Holy Scripture, one runs into an untenable set of discrepancies that can only be handled either by denial or by solutions such as the one above.

With all due respect to Father Obregón, I would argue that nut jobs who pervert the Scriptures can just as easily pervert the writings of the Church Fathers and the rendered opinions of the Church Councils (most of whom/which I agree with, by the way).  Therefore the issue is not so much an inherent danger in personal interpretations of Scriptures as it is nut jobs.

Scripture interprets Scripture,” argued John Calvin, for “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3.16), and also “no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation” (2 Peter 1.20). 

In other words, those who believe in Christ and that the Scriptures are the word of God, and who sincerely and carefully study it will consistently get it right.  Nut jobs, on the other hand, will always get it wrong.

God bless!

CalvinCuban