#i mean solas is literally a spirit worm

[citrusai]

"you're going to kill your own god so you can fall in love for the first time" from your life by andrea gibson is so solavellan to me and it goes both ways. gan'freya rejecting the gods as she knew them through tales passed on in history and learning of their true nature & the trespasser reveal, solas (in inquisition) almost rejecting his twisted nature to come back to who he was before the evanuris, and in veilguard being released from that burden and walking back into the fade he loved with 'frey... yeah

[seeker-ophelia]

Mythal, Solas, and Lavellan

So there’s lots of discussion about Mythal and Solas, and we need to talk about it.

I too, at first, was mad that Lavellan wasn’t enough for Solas.

And then I started thinking about it.

Not only was Mythal his mother, his creator, she coaxed him into being. Into changing his spirit and his purpose.

Regret Number 1.

He let her use his knowledge and wisdom to do a terrible thing, to kill (tranquil) the titans, changing a whole race of people at a molecular magical level.

Regret Number 2.

When that choice created the worst power known to Thedas (the blight) he was responsible again. And Mythal asked him to step up and fight against it, and he did. And a lot of people died.

Regret 3.

Mythal DIED. (IMO The gods blighted her because she stood against them for wanting to use the blight but that’s not important here). And Solas blames himself.

From Solas’ perspective, he is her puppy. Her Emerald Knight. Her General. Her Protector. Her Wisdom. Her servant, her SLAVE. He is BOUND TO HER. And he caused her downfall.

And you’re all like, GEAS! GEAS!

But wait.

From HIS perspective.

Rook says something somewhere along the lines of like, by abstainsing from being the good guy (oh wait maybe it was Varric in the fade…)

By choosing to be the villain instead of the hero is he absolving himself of the guilt (regret) that comes from having to have made those choices.

From Solas’ perspective, he is her slave.

LOOK AT HIS BODY LANGUAGE.

He is a worm in the dirt in front of her. He is a scolded child, a puppy with his tail between his legs.

But in the eyes of Mythal, he was always her friend. The one person who had always stood by her. She did not literally entrap him, or bind him. It was all in Solas’ own head.

He refused to take accountability for his actions, only able to survive through the crushing weight of his own guilt by blaming it on servitude to Mythal.

That’s why Rook escaped the prison. Because she faced her own choices, choices with terrible consequences, and accepted them. Took responsibility for them, and promised to do better.

Remember, after the Temple of Mythal…

Solas…

You gave yourself into the service of an ancient elvhen god!

What does that mean exactly?

You are Mythal’s creature now, everything you do whether you know it or not will be for her. *** You have given up a part of yourself.

***THIS WAS NEVER TRUE. IT WAS NOT TRUE FOR FLEMYTHAL & MORRIGAN, NOR WAS IT TRUE FOR ABELAS, NOR WAS IT TRUE FOR SOLAS. HE JUST WANTED TO BELIVE THAT IT WAS.

…I suppose it is better you have the power than Corypheus. Which leads to the next logical question… What will you do with the power of the Well once Corypheus is dead?

The war proved that we can’t go back to the way things were. I’ll try to help this world move forward. **Lavellan is talking about the mage/templar conflict, but Solas is putting her in his own shoes. Solas reached for power he could not control and fucked the whole world up.

You would risk everything you have with the hope that the future is better? What if it isn’t? What if you wake up to find that the future you shaped is worse than what was? **

**This is literally him asking her what she would do in his shoes. He woke up and the world was in chaos OF HIS MAKING. To prevent an evil HE CAUSED from spreading, he orchestrated the downfall of the people he loved and swore to protect.

I’ll take a breath, see where things went wrong, and then try again.

Just like that?

*He is in shock that she can be so cavalier about the guilt that has rocked him for (4?) millennia.

If we don’t keep trying, we’ll never get it right.

*And this is the only thing that calms him down.

You’re right. Thank You.

For what?

You have not been what I expected, Inquisitor, you have… impressed me.

You have offered hope that is one keeps trying, even if the consequences are grave… that someday, things will be better.

Then, of course, he takes this to mean that he needs to try to put The Evanuris in a different prison and take down the veil which isn’t at all what we meant sweetie but that’s okay get up and try again.

This is a classic case of a person in power not understanding the terrible, horrible consequences of unfettered power imbalances. Because Solas was always Friend to Mythal (Im not going into Freudian sex shit with you weirdos right now).

Solas was Mythals FRIEND.

Mythal was Solas’ EVERYTHING.

co·de·pend·en·cy

/ˌkōdəˈpend(ə)nsē/

noun

excessive emotional or psychological reliance on a partner,

His Mother, General, Creator, Protector, Queen, Goddess.

And he loved her so fiercely with every fiber of his new, physical being.

And he hated it.

And when Lavellan fell for him, and he for her, he was afraid.

Because he would never force a spirit against her purpose, and in his eyes the only way to love is the sick and twisted way he loved Mythal.

But again, from Mythal’s perspective, it wasn’t twisted. Solas was just Solas. And once again the powerful care not for the thoughts and opinions of those beneath them.

And that sin is on Mythal.

And that’s why she comes out and talks to Solas. Both aspects of her. To release him from the bonds that never existed. Be free, friend. You always were, but if you need me to say it I will because I love you.

“I pulled you from the fade and sent you into war. I used your wisdom as a weapon… and it broke you.”

Cole: Is there a way to save more spirits, Solas?

Solas: Not until the Veil is healed. The rifts draw spirits through, and the shock makes demons of them.

Cole: Pushing through makes you be yourself. You can hold onto the you. Being pulled through means you don't have enough you. You become what batters you, bruises your being.

Be free.

“The things that I have done…”

“Are not for you to bear alone, my friend. The many wrongs we did, we did together.”

And he COWERS before her. Shaking and shuddering. FNALLY being absolved of the guilt he’s carried since his inception.

“I release you from my service.”

And he SOBBS. At the RELIEF.

And Lavellan kneels before him (wrong, IMO because they should be equals but its fine)

And he can go back to his original purpose.

Not Pride.

Not Knowledge.

Not even Wisdom.

But Protection.   

“My life force now sustains the veil. With every breath I take, I will protect the innocent from my past failures.”

The Shepherds Wolf. Protecting his flock from those who would do them harm.

And Lavellan promises it won’t be terrible, as long as they’re together.

And maybe Solas can try this different kind of love. A love built on respect, and trust, instead of fear, and obedience.

And he can be his purpose, Protection, and also be a man. And love his vhenan.

Because he is free.

[yarpharp]

So because I am strange and always fascinated by posing cultural questions when it comes to creating crossover fanfiction, I had this wild thought worm recently for no reason: If you dumped Link (Legend of Zelda) into Thedas (Dragon Age), how the fuck would everyone in Thedas react to him?

I mean, depending on how you interpret Link's character, he doesn't talk. At all. I've always been of the opinion he speaks via some form of generalized Sign Language, but Why Would Thedas Share Any Common Signs? And who's to say there IS a formalized sign language in Thedas? Maybe there is, but it's technically a dead language now. The Elvhenan were fucked up but extremely modernized, so maybe they did have a Sign Language. Maybe the Dalish still have a lot of it, because Sign is a great way to silently communicate and Not Alert The Asshole Shemlen.

Either way, Link doesn't talk. And even if he can communicate via Sign Language, I highly doubt Hylian sign is gonna be understood. So there's one issue.

Secondly: Hylians don't look exactly like Theodosian elves. Modern elves of Thedas are scrawny and small but not too small; eyes bigger than a human and with cat-like night vision. Link? Link is canonically 5'2" and quite fit. Not skinny built and quite healthy, generally soft nonbinary features, bright eyes (at least in recent games; Link's got big fucking blues that almost glow for a nice contrast in TotK/BotW), pointy but not super pointy ears. Compared to Theodosian elves which are designed to look "distinctly fantastically different" in comparison to humans, Link just looks like a very short human with elf ears. So people might get a bit baffled at his looks; he's elfy but to the left.

Third: Hyrule isn't anti-magic. Magic is so inherently tied into everything in all the Legend of Zelda games, we the players just accept it. Link can wield magic rods and staves with no issue. Gerudo can use fire magic or summon lightning storms. Link can use magical items to summon winds, or devices that can magically transport him far distances. Rito can summon gales instinctually. Zora have water/ice magic and healing powers. If Link dodges correctly, he can seemingly slow time for a moment to deal a flurry attack. He uses Rauru's arm's magical abilities without blinking. The Master Sword is literally the ultimate magical item with a spirit inside of it.

Can you imagine Link losing his weapon in battle and just picking up a staff without thinking, but WHOOPS Thedas is kinda religiously anti-magic and someone is watching him just SUDDENLY THROWING ICE SPELLS (thinking about those magic staffs in BotW/TotK with the default AoE ice spell) without any hesitation? That is Not Normal for them like it is for Link. And Link himself like... Serves a powerful princess with the bloodline of a goddess. She literally tosses around light magic and time magic and shit. He probably can't begin to fathom a society that shuns something that so integral to Hyrule/Hyrule's safety in the face of Ganondorf's machinations.

Idk this was a bizarre thought worm I had. Maybe I will write a fanfic. Maybe I won't. It's interesting to think about in an extremely nerdy way, lol.

(also Link would HATE Solas but LOVE The Iron Bull and The Chargers. Prove me wrong, I dare you.)

[darkspellmaster]

The Dragon Prince Theory: Could Aaravos be Callum's Ancestor or Father?

I was thinking of how much Aaravos and Elarion,  remind me of Mythal and Fen'Harel or Solas from Dragon Age and the myth around them, and how much Callum looks like Aaravos in the face area, jaw line and such, making me think the two are related.

So let me lay out some facts before I start to explain my reasons. 

Things that we know about the world of Dragon Prince: 

Elves can use one form of magic (moon elves use moon magic, etc.) 

Creatures have a primal connection to one form of magic (bait is fire, etc.) 

Humans can only use, as far as we know, dark magic 

Dark magic needs to exchange a life to extract the magic

Aaravos is the only elf that is shown to know/use  all of the known magics

Callum was able to tap into the wind

Callum’s father is said to be dead

Sarai seemed to have a stronger understanding of the magic world in general

Callum rejected Dark magic

Callum is said to be the key to unlocking Aaravos’s box 

Humans can use elemental magic but only with a primal stone

Humans can be attracted to Elves (Soren’s comment on Rayla.)

So why did I point those out, because I think there are some key factors in the story of Aaravos and Elarion, that leads into Sarai and Harrow’s story along with what’s going in regards to Rayla and Callum. 

Let me though start with Aaravos and Elarion’s poems and explain about Mythal and the Dread Wolf. 

I am not going into the long history of this as it’s way to long and complicated, so to all DA fans sorry if I miss things, I’m trying to simplify. So in the games of  Dragon Age we learn of the lore of what we could call the High elves. These High elves are very fae like, aka, as with folklore they promise to help you only to screw you over in the end. In the world of DA these High elves were owning the rest of the elf races and other races in the world. In their greed and lust for power they pretty much caused the birth of Demons and other things. 

Now among these High Elves were two High Elves that didn’t agree. Mythal and Fen’Harel (or Solas in DA3) -although we don’t know his actual name as of yet. Mythal, as per the lore we know now, was trying to do something to stop the High Elves from harming others and ended up being murdered and later her spirit wound up in the body of a woman named Flemeth. 

Fen’harel seeing his love killed, wound up locking away the High elves, and pretty much caused a very large problem in the world of DA regarding magic for a long time and moving forward after avenging his lover’s death is trying to stop the High Elves in his own way which could kill everyone. 

Now I bring this up because their love story reminds me a lot of the poem that was referenced in The Dragon Prince when Viren was looking for info on Aaravos. 

(Link to the first poem here done by Moonshadow Meme’s) 

So in Moonshadow’s translation we have various versus, which I’m going to label as V and a number next to it, and it goes from the top to the bottom of their post.  

V1.  They turned their backs and left Elarion to die.

Now you can read this in various ways, but it’s clear that some group turned their backs on this woman and left her to her death. However, if I take into account the various myths out there plus the DA story of Mythal, you can surmise that the young woman here is a Christ like figure. Typically this means that you have people that are shunning her for her gifts. As with Mythal, when she was killed the other High Elves did nothing to stop it from happening as per what’s in the game lore. 

V2. Elarion, her vessel fighting death, withered and suffered in darkness...

The first thing that strikes me is the word vessel. Now what we’re looking at here is the biblical used of the term vessel and not the ship. 

“ (chiefly in or alluding to biblical use) a person, especially regarded as holding or embodying a particular quality.”

So what does this allude to here? Well again the idea of her being an important figure at some point is clear, and she embodies qualities that make her “The special” in this case. The implication here is that either she was attacked or poisoned and is now dying, as withered itself shows that she’s becoming ill from possibly something. It could be the dark magic, as we see what that does to a person, or some other illness or poison that’s consuming her body. Whatever it is it’s painful and she’s on her own or blinded, or in the literal dark. 

until the last star shone from afar...

You could allude to the idea of the last star being just that, a bright light from the early dawn that fades when the light of the sun comes up. 

Or, more likely the allusion here is to the idea of Aaravos being the last of the Star Elves. We know that they are rare, as per the comments from the official tumblr and twitter that Aaravos is a rare elf, telling me that there isn’t that many left. In this case the implication is that he’s the last one, and the shone from afar means that he wasn’t physically there. Or at least he wasn’t there at first...

Now it could be that Aaravos was in the mirror all this time and had passed the cube to Elarion, like how he sent the worm to Viren. But, if that was the case then why would the humans have said mirror? Seems a bit odd to me. So for now let’s put the “Aaravos has been in the mirror for a very very very long time” to the side as we don’t know how long he’s been locked up. 

But the afar idea give me the feeling that he came to her from a distance and she saw him through her minds eye, rather than in person at first. 

In all likelihood Aaravos found her in the woods or someplace in Xadia, and heard her and came to her to see what was going on, and he was physically near her.  

she touched it: fire, a gift, a spark

Now again, we have to assume here that the it is Aaravos and not the mirror as, again, we saw that Aaravos could only send things through the mirror and not physically come through it yet. On top of this, Viren touched the mirror a few times, and didn’t learn the magic through the mirror itself. Though it’s clear that Aaravos knows how to teach through it. 

Assuming then that it was Aaravos she touched, then the words have some different meanings. 

Fire could mean the actual teaching of fire like how he put out the flame. It could however indicated attraction, as fire is known as a symbol of passion. It could also be shown that he showed her about fire in some way.  

A gift, clearly the gift of magic given by Aaravos to her, to teach her. 

A spark, again two meanings here. First one could be lighting, thus an electrical thing going on in magic or how to pull the spark from a living being to use the magic, but there’s an issue there as Aaravos never used a living being to do the magic, only his own blood making me think Dark Magic is a kin to blood magic in DA, where you could kill yourself using it if you are not careful with it. However spark could also mean love, or the spark of love. Indicating that there were feelings there. 

V 3. Elarion, with her bright white, embraced the night’s great dark flame...

Again so much going on here that could mean a few things. Bright white could be indicate a blank slate of a person that could be taught, as in there’s nothing there that can’t be molded. Bright white could be connected to innocent purity, like something angelic, or it could also indicate the potential for light magic if there is such a thing. 

Embrace could be her willingly accepting Aaravos’s teachings, or/and, it could mean a hug as a sign of affection, or in some cases it could be alluding to a more intimate sort of affection being shown. Whatever the case may be Elarion clearly took on Aaravos as a mentor figure, and possible more, given the next line. 

and when she (it?) bowed, offered surrender, the name “Aaravos” was whispered...

Clearly this, again, can be read in various ways. For sure she’s becoming his student and learning from him. She’s offering herself to his services, though in the scene with Viren, it’s the reverse that’s going on. Also, again, surrender could take on double meaning as it could imply a more intimate sort of surrender here, as in a physical as well as a spiritual one. 

The poem then goes on to talk about the fact that Elarion spread her roots, as in she was out there teaching people what she was taught and Aaravos was her midnight star. That line there seems way more intimate than just something you would call a mentor or teacher in this case. 

The last full verse indicates that it’s probably winter, but the implication there too with the idea of her pulling her roots close, or her servant’s close, against the night’s murderous chill could be two things. 

One it could be indicating an attack by Moon Shadow elves, or two Aaravos was betrayed by her and he was going to get revenge on it. 

The last lines in the poem are interesting though without connections. Flower blossomed in allusions could be her growing from a weaker person to a stronger one. Or it could indicate a more womanly person, we see her going from her being weak in the dark to her fears and the dark being scared of her. The issue becomes what are the last lines? It could be that she was looking for Aaravos, or that others were seeking him out? The last line makes me think that there’s a connection to him and the dragons. 

Now, to me the poem may hint at Elarion and Aaravos having some sort of intimate relationship on top of just being teacher and student. As with Fen’Harel and Mythal, the idea I’m looking at is that Elarion was able to learn magic from Aaravos, and became a stronger person who taught others how to use the dark magic to better their lives. With Elarion mirroring some of Mythal’s story, you may have some one that is being blacklisted by the Elves, but praised by the humans for using the magic that doesn’t seem normal and which takes life in order to use it. 

We know whoever wrote the other comment on Aaravos, it’s clear this is someone who likes him. 

(Translation from salemsrealm ) *Note: the red lines were done by Salemsrealm 

The way it’s written is very much like how in the bible you have Letter’s to different groups discussing their religion, like “A letter from paul to the Corinthians” that’s the feel I get regarding the passage that has Aaravos listed as a friend to all. It also goes on to add notes about how others are going to see them (humans I’m assuming) as equals and that he sees potential in us. 

  Which leads to the Option one aspect of this theory that Callum, possibly through his father’s, or maybe Sarai’s family line is related to Aaravos. We know that, though Harrow’s letter, the cube was passed down through generations, though we’re not given a clue who had it last. I have to assume it was either via Sarai getting it from her husband or getting it through her own parents. 

And then there’s Option two, which is that Avaravos is Callum’s dad. 

So let’s start with Option one here since I know a lot of people will be wondering how the hell option two works. 

Now what do we know about Callum’s father. Well nothing, honestly. What little we do have comes from King Harrow in his letter: 

“ Because I’m your stepfather, I was trying to give you the space I thought you needed to love your real father, even though he passed away.” 

We know that according to Harrow Callum’s birth father is dead. But outside of this, we have nothing about him. 

We do know though that, again, through the letter about Aaravos’s box. 

“This cube is an ancient relic that has been passed down through the ages. It belonged to an elven wizard in Xadia, the Archmage Aaravos, a master of all six primal sources. It is hidden in a box of keys because it is known as the"Key of Aaravos" and legends say it unlocks something of great power in Xadia. Perhaps it will be you, Callum, who discovers the key’s secrets.” 

So what can we say about this bit of information that is important. 

Well for one thing we know that it belonged to Aaravos and was passed down through the ages. So...how did Harrow get it? We know that Viren doesn’t know about the damn thing, he’d have gotten to it already if he did. And it’s clear that he didn’t know who Aaravos was, meaning that the name is not well known. 

However there are books and the poem to go by. Question is, who gave Harrow that box? How long has he had it? If it was something in his family he would have told Callum that it was passed down to him, right? So let’s assume for the moment this object didn’t belong to Harrow, well then who had it first? Given it’s an elven item and going into Xadia is not easy, that means that it had to have come from someone connected to Xadia. 

If we assume that Sarai is like Ez, then we can guess she has some skill with talking to creatures. So it’s not too far off to assume that she may have gotten the Cube and given it to Harrow as a gift. 

Now the question is, how did she get it? Well option one is that she took it, but she doesn’t strike me as the sort to do that. So option two it was a gift. We know that the elves are not really very into humans all that much, but there could have been a friendship that was struck up between Sarai and an elf that lead to her gaining the box. But...

Option 3 is more likely, where in Sarai may have met an Elf that became her husband, or lover, and they produced Callum. Now given that Callum managed to connect to the Storm/sky, I wouldn’t be too surprised if we had a case of his dad being a Sky/Storm Elf. 

Note the green in the skin tone, could be connected to the eye color Callum has. 

So let’s assume for a second that could explain Callum’s connection to the storm. But, given how this story is going there’s a chance that Sarai may have some abilities in her, passed on through her family, which could make her a descendant of Aaravos and Elarion. Given that human’s are a more common aspect, this could be a case of said sky elf, or even if his dad is human, than he could be the descendant of Aaravos through various means as we don’t know yet how the family line works for elves and if they can intermix. 

If this is the case that Sarai or Callum’s dad has the blood of Aaravos in them, then it’s likely they could have passed it onto Callum and caused him to gain the magic to unlock that box. The likely scenario would be that Elarion had a child with him and that the child, or children, went on down the line until we hit Sarai or Callum’s dad. Either case we have a person who would be considered a halfling or some percentage star elf allowing for magic to be part of the blood line. 

Which could explain why Callum insisted that he could feel that he could do magic. This I think is important as no one else ever says this, not even our two dark magic users. Callum knows it’s something that he can do, he must do, and thus the letter from Harrow makes him feel more sure that he can connect to that part of him. Leading to Harrow’s comment in his dream state where he was able to break from the hold the dark magic had on him. 

This could be the most likely case in regard to the story since Aaravos is a rare elf, given the details we have so far. However there is option 2. 

Now Option 2 is a bit...odd. Not because it’s something that seems illogical, it’s just a question of how and when, and possibly why. 

So let’s start with the first issue of this theory, which would be “Wasn’t Aaravos locked up for a long time?” 

Answer: We don’t know. We know that Ruaan said that it’s something worse than death. But how does he know this? You could argue, Legends, but then wouldn’t that have come out at some point? Either through Rayla or the Moon elf? Fact is we don’t know, and the thing that is making this a bit fuzzy is that Rayla’s parents were where Viren found the mirror. If this was something that was that old, why need elves to protect it if it’s with the dragons? You would think they would trust them to not have it taken. 

So assuming that Aaravos wasn’t locked up for a long time...then where was he? 

Well, probably hiding out, away from the eye of the elves for his crime, or at least what they perceived to be a crime, giving magic to the humans. And the most likely place is the place that Lujanne mentioned, the weird world between life and death. 

If, as I’m guessing and hopefully correct, the mirror acts as a portal and was locked due to the magic writing on the frame, then Aaravos could have used the mirror or mirrors like it to go through this place, since he knows and can use Moonshadow Elf magic. This would mean the mirrors are like the Eluvians from Dragon Age, acting as a means of travel through the fade and the veil where all the magic in the world there is kept. 

So how does this lead to the idea of Callum being Aaravos’s son? 

Well let’s start with the facts. We know that, according to the poem, Aaravos gave magic to the humans, and he sees them as interesting and having potential. To me this reads again, like Solas, seeing great things coming out of them. Meaning that Aaravos has no issue with being around and hanging out with humans. 

We also know that the box in question belonged to him, but not that he made it. 

It belonged to an elven wizard in Xadia, the Archmage Aaravos, a master of all six primal sources. It is hidden in a box of keys because it is known as the"Key of Aaravos" and legends say it unlocks something of great power in Xadia.

So what’s important here to note is that it belong to Aaravos, not that he made it, making me think that this wasn’t just a case of him crafting this but it being passed on to him through his clan of mages. This means that he was a holder of it. 

Now we know that Aaravos can use all the sources, we’ve seen it in action:

And yet he’s the only one that can do it. According to Rayla the magic that the elves use is an internal thing, and the implication is that the elves can’t learn other forms of magic. A sun elf can’t learn water magic, and a moon elf won’t be able to learn say storm magic. 

As seen in season one, there is no hand motion, and Rayla goes shadow. But like Callum Aaravos needs to use the magic in the same way Callum does. He has to write the symbol. 

Yet Aaravos, because he’s a star touched elf, this probably means that he has a connection to the world in a different way because every thing on earth has some connection to a cosmic energy due to the fact that, you know, we’re kind of made of star dust. 

If you notice the other person that seems to have that connection is Callum. 

After he wakes up and talk to Rayla he mentions that he feels more connected to the world and is able to latch onto things. 

During his time in his mind there’s a moment when his mother helps him out of his panic attack and when he’s using the other magic...what does he do, draws it out like Aaravos. We know he knows how to do this due to the Primal stone, but, it’s interesting that he recovers so fast, and seems to understand it better now. 

Another factor to consider is the fact that Callum and Aaravos have similar looks:

The reason I bring this up is because while faces on the show do have similarities, both Ez and Callum show looks like their parents. 

And if you look at Aaravos and Callum, with Sarai’s softer side, well you can see the similarities there. 

So then the question becomes how, how could Callum look human and still be part star elf, wouldn’t that stand out? 

Well, again we look to Dragon Age. One of the lead characters of the first story Alistair , is actually half elf on his mother’s side. However because of the more dominate traits from his human father, Alistair looks human. 

We don’t know how it works in the world of The dragon prince but I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s similar in nature to how DA does it where the human aspect is physically stronger and takes away the ears and the horns. After all Soren even comments on how good looking Rayla is, meaning that a human could fall for an elf and vice versa. 

So how would Aaravos and Sarai meet and create Callum? 

Well the most likely situation was that Aaravos probably was hiding away from the elves, or they didn’t know that he had been the cause of the dark magic being created. It’s not that hard to buy into the fact that he was more of a person that like solitude. 

We see in his room that he studies a lot of books, and clearly he seems pretty calm and collected for someone locked away. So it’s not too hard to suppose that after events with the humans being pushed out of Xadia, he may have followed in a way over time and watched how things played out. 

As for Sarai, well, to me it seems pretty clear that she has the same skill that Ezran has, to talk with animals, and this could flow into talking to magical creatures as well. Given the fact that no one believes Ezran when he says he can talk to the animals, it could be that Sarai had the same issue, leading her to probably go off on her own as a young woman to deal with that. 

And let’s be honest, after seeing her personality and looks, it’s not hard to believe that anyone wouldn’t find her attractive. 

On the side of Aaravos, given how many are already liking how he looks, attraction wouldn’t be that huge a jump for Sarai in this case. On top of that he may not have been walking around as an elf. We know that the Moonshadow mages can cast illusions, as per Lujanne in season 1 and 2, so turning that magic on himself and creating a persona would be a easy trick for Aaravos. 

We also know now that Ezran takes after his mom in the trust department, and that she doesn’t seem to be against magical beings. So it’s not a leap in logic to assume that she wouldn’t be against the idea of being in love with someone who was an elf and different from her. 

It would not be a hard sell either to have it were Aaravos showed Sarai about the other creatures in Xadia, and helped her to hone her ability. if the poem is true too, Aaravos wouldn’t be against Amaya for her being unable to hear, though I don’t think he would have shown her his true form, but would have probably shown Sarai. Aaravos probably also would have seen a skilled warrior in her, something that could have complimented his magic. (Heck you could argue that their dynamic mirrors that of Rayla and Callum, a female fighter and a male mage.) 

The two easily could have met in the woods, with Aaravos in his illusion, and the two hitting it off. Leading eventually to some sort of confession of love, leading to something akin to a marriage, and possibly Aaravos confessing about what he is at some point in time. This could have easily lead to the two creating Callum and him being born with the hidden power to use the other primal sources like his father. Keep in mind that there’s no rules that say he couldn’t have loved to women at different times. 

However I have a feeling that if Aaravos was in hiding, his cover may have been blown and he would have had to flee. We know due to Runaan that the mirror is seen as worse than death, and we know that Rayla’s parents were more than likely guarding it. Moonshadow elves are the assassins of the clans, and we see how they do things, which leads me to think that they couldn’t outright kill him and were probably sent by the other elves to take him out for teaching the dark magic to the humans. 

Which brings me to the second point of Sarai. Given her actions in season 2 I have to think she wouldn’t just let him be killed or taken before her. So more than likely Aaravos could have given her the cube, and explained to her what it was, which she later gave as a gift to Harrow to keep safe for Callum for when he was older. And she in turn explained to him the story behind it as explained by Aaravos to her. No doubt to keep her safe it’s not to large of a leap to think that he used that magic of his to make it hard for her to find him, and probably she thought he had died due to blood or other things she could have found in an event of a struggle with the Moonshadow elves. 

This leaves the next big question. If he is Callum’s father, now what? Is he evil or no? 

To me Aaravos seems to be the type where what he’s doing is bad, but he doesn’t think he’s being bad. Again, if the poems are telling truth, then there’s a chance that he actually saw good in humans, and this may be a case of him, over time, wanting to get back at the world for screwing things up for him. 

As with Solas from DA, there’s this idea that he’s a bit of a trickster type who is seeking revenge for what happened not just to him but those he cared for, and becoming more and more willing to find a way out. Clearly he was doing something when he walked out of that room, and we know he’s manipulating Viren. It seems to me he sees him as a way out, and this could lead to some interesting moments with Ezran and possibly Callum. 

Let’s say he finds out that Sarai is dead, if he still has feelings for her, will he blame Xadia more for it’s actions? Would he see in Ezran what he saw in Sarai, and want to help him grow his gift? Or would he be jealous of the boy who’s father was with the woman he loved and who’s actions lead to her death? 

Also if you look at Callum in this case, not only would he probably want to see his son again, but it’s highly likely that he would want to train him too. Yet as we saw Callum could be the one able to unlock that box, and for someone that is probably very good at playing others with a silver tongue, it wouldn’t be a huge leap to think he could get Callum to help him get whatever it is that the box connects to in Xadia. This could lead to some very dramatic aspects, especially if Aaravos uses the weakness of Claudia, or Rayla or even Callum to exploit things and get his way. 

Could he love his son and want him to join him? To train him? Would Callum be willing to work with him? Or would he reject him and connect back to Harrow as his father and want to be like he was? How would this affect Aaravos, and would that lead to some darker things coming. 

Having Aaravos be Callum’s father not only would be a huge dynamic for the magic and growth of Callum, but for the over all story as well, because it would make him have to confront who he was and connect directly to the idea of what Harrow said in his letter to him...

“ I ask you and your brother to reject history as a narrative of strength and instead have faith that it can be a narrative of love.

I’ve tried to be selfless as a king, but as a father, I have a selfish wish. And that is for you and Ezran to be…free. Reject the chains of history. Do not let the past define your future, as I did. Free yourself from the past. Learn from it, understand it, then let it go. Create a brighter future from your own hearts and imagination.”

Having both these men effect Callum’s choices could lead to some really great story telling and push the idea of creating that brighter future. It would explain all of Callum’s desires to be a mage, because it’s something he’s born with, and would also be a huge connection to the box and make sense for why he can be the one that can unlock it. Having Aaravos being his father would be, honestly, fun. 

*Well if you made it all the way to the end, congratulations, and I hope this all makes sense as a theory to you dear reader. 

[catholiccom-blog]

In September 1996 I resigned my ministry as a Protestant pastor to enter the Catholic Church.

It was a decision that was easy for me to make in that I was convinced Catholicism was true and that the Catholic Church was my spiritual home. It was a decision that was nearly impossible to make in that I understood the implications of that decision. I knew what it would entail in practical terms.

This was made beautifully manifest, shall we say, when three months after leaving the ministry I was standing in the kitchen of the restaurant where I was then working as a waiter. I was folding napkins and thinking about Martin Luther when I suddenly heard someone yelling about something. I looked up and saw my manager standing in the doorway. She was literally screaming at me to fold the napkins faster.

I remember mumbling an apology, cranking up the speed and thinking to myself, What the hell have I done?

But then, there were reasons for doing what I did. I didn't leave Protestantism, the Protestant ministry, my career and only source of income because I liked the smell of incense. There were reasons, and one of the most important had to do with the topic we've been on for quite a few blog posts now: sola scriptura.

Sola scriptura had been the very foundation of my worldview as an evangelical. It was the very atmosphere breathed at the Bible college I attended, in seminary, in every church I'd been a part of or pastored. And then the time came when I was challenged with the questions: is sola scriptura really the teaching of Scripture? Was it really the belief and practice of the early Church?

Over time I came to believe it wasn't.

But that wasn't all. I also came to believe that sola scriptura is unworkable as a mode of operation for the Church.

And I don't mean simply that it doesn't work well and that we need to work harder to accurately interpret the Bible and pray harder for the guidance of the Spirit in order to make sola scriptura work. What I mean is that even in principle it does not—and indeed cannot—work.

Since the time of the Reformation, the practice of “Scripture alone” has served as a perfect blueprint for theological anarchy.

It can’t be what Jesus intended for his Church.

The Catholic view of authority

At the time of the Reformation in the sixtennth century, the Church’s position on the issue of authority was essentially the same as it had been since the time of the early Church Fathers: authority was seen as residing in the inner working of Scripture, apostolic Tradition and an authoritative magisterium.

One Christian might say this and another that. Debates might rage between various theologians and schools of thought. Great doctors of the Church might wrangle and dispute. But when the time comes that a decision must be made, and the Church examines the light of the inspired word of God through the lens of Sacred Tradition, and through its ordained leadership formally defines a matter of faith or practice, what Catholics believe is that the Holy Spirit leads the Church so that the conclusion it comes to can be trusted as true. The Church can say what it said at the conclusion of its first council in Jerusalem: “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” (Acts 15:28).

The Catholic view of how Scripture, Tradition, and magisterium work together to provide a basis of authority for the Christian is beautifully summarized in the Vatican II document Dei Verbum:

Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit. And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God, which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound, and spread it abroad by their preaching.

The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone….Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant.  It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication, and expounds it faithfully (DV 9).

The origin of sola scriptura

At the time of the Reformation Luther and the other Protestants were teaching doctrines that contradicted what Tradition and the magisterium had established as true.

Luther said, in essence, “The Church is wrong on this issue." (The specific issue doesn’t matter at this point.) The Church said, in essence, “No, you’re wrong.” Luther said, “No, you're wrong.” The Church said, “But what you're teaching contradicts the formal teaching of the Church on this issue.”

With this the foundational issue of authority was raised, and Luther faced a watershed: what did he believe about who has authority to decide what the true teachings of Christianity are? Did the Church have authority when, having examined Scripture and Tradition, it made formal ruling on an issue of doctrine or morals?  

Or was it up to each Christian to decide?

Luther really had only two options: he could stand with the authority of the Church and say, “You know, it sure seems to me that this is what the Bible is teaching, but I must be missing something. I must be wrong.” Or he could abandon the authority of the Church and stand on his own interpretation of the Bible, whatever the cost.

We all know what Luther did. He stood before the Diet of Worms and said:

Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scripture or by evident reason . . . I consider myself convicted by the testimony of Holy Scripture, which is my basis. My conscience is captive to the word of God.

It is nearly impossible to exaggerate the profound meaning of this moment in the history of Christianity. At the moment Luther spoke those words, the foundation of the Catholic worldview, its very basis of authority—the light of Sacred Scripture, seen through the lens of Sacred Tradition, interpreted by the teaching office of the Church—was rejected, abandoned, set aside. And the foundation of the Protestant worldview was laid: Scripture is the Christian's sole and sufficient infallible rule of faith and practice.

Practical implications

So what are the implications of saying that Scripture will function as my “sole and sufficient infallible rule of faith and practice”?

It means that whatever the Fathers of the Church may have said, whatever Church councils may have decided, on whatever popes and theologians and pastors and teachers may have insisted, in the end I am going to be bound only by what I determine the Bible to be teaching.

The primary and inescapable practical implication of sola scriptura is what is called the “right of private judgment,” or the “right of private interpretation.” It's the right of each Christian to read, study, and decide for himself what he believes the true teachings of Christianity to be.

Of course, Catholics also believe in the right of private interpretation. It's just that we hold this to be a limited right, a right practiced within the limits of what the Church has already formally defined to be true.

As Catholics, we're like children at the playground. We're free to swing and slide and sit in the sandbox of Scripture, throwing biblical texts into one another's eyes. But there's a fence around the playground that keeps us from wandering out into the street and being run over by every passing theological fad.

Luther ripped out that fence. He took what had been a limited right and made it an absolute right. "Unless I am convinced." In other words, in the final analysis, I don’t care what popes have said! I don’t care what the councils have said! I don't care what the Tradition of the Church has been. Unless I am convinced from Scripture and evident reason . . . “Unless I am convinced . . .”

And when you think about it, in the absence of the kind of Church we see functioning in the New Testament, a Church with the Spirit-given ability to pronounce authoritatively on the true teachings of Christianity—the kind of Church the Catholic Church claims to be—what is left but to say that each Christian has to right to decide for himself?

Luther put it like this: “In these matters of faith, to be sure, each Christian is for himself pope and church”(Werke, 5:407, 35)

In his “Reply to Sadoleto,” John Calvin stated the same belief in these words:

We hold that the word of God alone lies beyond the sphere of our judgment. . . . Fathers and councils are of authority only in so far as they accord with the rule of the word (emphasis added).

Sounds good, but of course there's a hitch: the word of God has to be read and interpreted. All of the material of revelation may be there in the pages of Scripture, either stated or implied. But someone has to pull together the many strands of scriptural evidence, draw out those implications, and come to conclusions about what is being taught. Someone has to interpret Scripture.

So when Calvin says, "Fathers and councils are of authority only in so far as they accord with the rule of the word," what he's really saying is, "Fathers and councils are of authority only in so far as what they say accords with what I determine the Bible to be teaching."

The unraveling of the Church

It’s easy to project what would come of this.

As soon as Luther and Calvin and the others began preaching sola scriptura and the right of private interpretation, immediately there was an explosion of interpretations of Scripture and with this an explosion of divisions within Protestantism. The immediate result was doctrinal chaos.

It’s easy to see this in the current situation where Christians assume it is their right and duty to determine whether the Baptists are right or the Presbyterians or the Methodists or the Lutherans or the Seventh-day Adventists or the teaching of some independent teacher or denomination.

But listen to what one prominent Protestant theologian and professor was saying within a couple years of Luther’s launching of the Reformation:

Noblemen, townsmen, peasants, all classes understand the gospel better than I or St. Paul; they are now wise and think themselves more learned than all the ministers. . . . There is no smearer but when he has heard a sermon or can read a chapter in German, makes a doctor of himself and . . . convinces himself that he knows everything better than all who teach him.

And in another place:

There are as many sects and beliefs as there are heads. This fellow will have nothing to do with baptism; another denies the sacrament; a third believes that there is another world between this and the Last Day. Some teach that Christ is not God; some say this, some say that. There is no rustic so rude but that, if he dreams or fancies anything, it must be the whisper of the Holy Spirit, and he himself a prophet

Interesting quotes. Especially when you know these are the words of Martin Luther himself.

Conclusion

It makes sense that sola scriptura and the right of private interpretation would lead to doctrinal chaos among Christians, and in terms of the simple facts of history, it seems obvious that it has. It also makes sense to think that Jesus would want to establish his Church with some method for authoritatively deciding matters of faith and practice, Doesn’t it make sense to think he wouldn’t simply toss a pile of books and letters into our laps and say, “Do your best!”?

I remember the day I read the following passage from Vincent of Lerins and thought, “Yes this is how it must be”:

Here someone may ask: since the canon of Scriptures is complete, and is in itself adequate, why is there any need to join to its authority the understanding of the Church. Because Holy Scripture, on account of its depth, is not accepted in a universal sense. The same statements are interpreted in one way by one person, in another sense by someone else, with the result that there seem to be as many opinions as there are people. . . . Therefore, on account of the number and variety of errors, there is a need for someone to lay down a rule for the interpretation of the prophets and the apostles in such a way that it is directed by the rule of the Catholic Church (see Alister E. McGrath, The Christian Theology Reader, 50-51).

To be continued . . .

[mattprivettwrites]

The indispensable doctrine

Author’s Note: This post was originally written on January 15, 2015, and posted at my original web site, The MATTrix. As I transition away from that web site, I’m re-posting some things here along the way.

___________________________________________

Outside of the church, Muslims are killing people, American taxpayers are giving over a half-billion dollars a year to Planned Parenthood so they can murder babies, and judges nationwide are giving a middle finger to God and Christians by forcing “same-sex marriage” down our throats, and there is so much more I could say.

Inside of the (professing) church, Joel Osteen still has clean teeth and is making his millions peddling fortune cookie wisdom, Christian bookstores are bowing the knee to the dollar by peddling his heresy and the unbiblical and antibiblical teachers of others, the largest Southern Baptist Church in the world is led by a man who has redefined the Ten Commandments as promises, and oh, there is here also so much more I could say.

Why is all of this happening? Why are there so many problems both inside and outside of churches? Why is the world the way it is?

The easy answer, of course, is sin. And it’s the correct answer, too. Rebellion against God. A dissatisfaction with His provision and His command and a lust for the idol of self, the idol of more, the idol of my way.

But let’s dig a little deeper. Where does sin come from? Well, not so ironically, the same place we find out what sin is.

The first sin of man, resulting in the fall of man, occurred in the Garden of Eden. You know the story, but you should read it again anyway to be reminded. God told Adam, He “commanded the man, saying, ‘From any tree of the garden you may eat freely, but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die'” (Gen 2:16-17, emphasis mine).

So God spoke.

Then this happened: “[The serpent] said to the woman, ‘Indeed, has God said, “You shall not eat from any tree in the garden”?’ The woman said to the serpent, ‘From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, “You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.”‘ The serpent said to the woman, ‘You surely will not die! For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.’ When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate” (Gen 3:1b-6).

God spoke. And man disobeyed.

Man wanted more. Man departed from the word of God. Man wasn’t satisfied with what God had said, so man did what he wanted to do. As a result, hell broke loose on earth.

If only we would learn.

We are all, because of what happened in Eden, born sinners who sin. We are all born dead — spiritually dead, that is. Conceived in iniquity (Ps 51:5). Dead in our trespasses and sins, sons of disobedience, children of wrath (Eph 2:1-3). Our hearts are all, by nature, more deceitful than all else and desperately wicked (Jer 17:9). We are sinners who sin.

We are sinners who do the exact thing Adam did in Eden. God has spoken, but so what!

All sin is, at its core, an abandonment, an ignorance, a rejection, a rebellion, a refusal, an abdication, an amendment to, a dissatisfaction with… the word of God. God has spoken, and we say “So what!” or “And…” or “But!”

That is why [the introduction is over now] of all the doctrines Christians must believe and need to believe and should believe, sola scriptura is the indispensable doctrine.

Sola scriptura, you might know, is Latin for scripture alone. It originated out of the Protestant Reformation, along with faith alone, grace alone, Christ alone, and to the glory of God alone as the pillars of a defection away from the bastardization of the church by Rome, who taught that while God’s word might be authoritative, so was the word of man as decreed through Popes and Church Councils.

Martin Luther was the gasoline poured upon already simmering embers of discontent with the Roman Catholic Church when, on October 31, 1517, he nailed his 95 Theses of protest on the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, hoping for the reformation of Rome. When the powers that be would have none of it, the only choice Luther and any true Christian had was to wipe the dust off their feet and depart. As a result Luther was pursued, both by those who wanted to hear more from him and by those who wanted to shut him up by whatever means necessary.

A fateful day came at the Diet of Worms in 1521, presided over by Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor. Luther was asked if he recanted his writings, which castigated Rome and affirmed, by and large, what those still protesting Rome continue to affirm as biblical truth. Luther responded with famous words,

Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. May God help me. Amen. (emphasis mine)

The world, represented by the Roman Catholic Church in that room, rejected Luther. And the world still does. Hence Muslims killing people, abortions costing $400 while adoptions cost $40,000, and the like.

But tragically, and more and more, the professing church seems to be turning its back on Luther — at least his words at Worms — and thus, turning its back on the word of God.

Sola scriptura is the indispensable doctrine, because when you try to add anything to or subtract anything from the word of God — contained in the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments — you are following in the footsteps of the first man and first woman.

Today many professing Christians are not really Christians at all, because they’ve been convinced they’re safe by pastors and teachers who derive their authority not from the word of God, but by whatever works.

Today many professing Christians are in grave danger because they trust Christian bookstores to sell books and other materials that are in line with and help explain the word of God. Meanwhile, they are buying books which claim to speak for God instead.

Today many professing Christians will do anything and everything to feel spiritual or be inspired or feel holy or that they are hearing from God — except read their Bible.

Sola scriptura is the indispensable doctrine. It’s the most foundational thing to understand. We have to know it and believe it and acknowledge it, because everything else we believe come from it… the word of God… the Bible. The Bible has to be that important. If it’s not we start believing the wrong things, doing the wrong things, and setting ourselves up for shipwreck.

As I understand the Bible, there are four things about the Bible we all need to know.

The inspiration of Scripture (the one the scholar rejects)

The Bible is inspired by God. Let me repeat that. It is inspired by God. In 2 Timothy 3:16-17 we read that “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God might be adequate, equipped for every good work.” That word for inspired (the Greek theopnuestos) literally means breathed out. These verses are telling us the words of Scripture are breathed out of God’s mouth, so to speak. They are from Him. The Bible in inspired by God and it teaches us, it reproves us (that means it tells us when we’re wrong), it corrects us (teaching us how to be right), and it trains us for righteousness (so that we won’t be wrong next time). That’s what the Bible does, and that’s because God is righteous and the Bible, the Scriptures, are His word.

Or how about 2 Peter 1:20-21? “No prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” The Bible wasn’t just written by men. The Holy Spirit gave them the words. The Bible is inspired, breathed out, by God.

The inerrancy of Scripture (the one the skeptic rejects)

The Bible is inerrant. Meaning without error, completely truthful and completely trustworthy.

If we believe the Bible, as it was inspired by God, has any errors, then what does that say about God? It would mean we don’t believe God is completely truthful. It would mean we don’t believe He is powerful enough to give us His word so that, now thousands of years after He gave it to us, we can still trust it. What does that Bible say about itself?

How about Psalm 119:89? “Forever, O LORD, Your word is settled in heaven.” Paul is talking about the Scriptures in 1 Corinthians 2:12-13 when he writes, “Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.” What that is saying is that God has given us His word in a way that we can know it, and we can’t know it if there are errors.

Now I know that one of the favorite hobbies of some is to say, “The Bible is full of contradictions.” To which I say, “First of all, show me and let’s talk about these so-called contradictions. Second of all, you’re wrong. And through diligent reading and studying of God’s word I’ll show you you’re wrong.”

God is truth. Jesus said He is the truth. His Spirit is the Spirit of truth. And as Jesus said in John 17:17, the word of God is truth, by which we are sanctified (made holy). The Bible is inerrant.

The authority of Scripture (the one the sinner rejects)

The Bible is authoritative. We all have authorities. For students, teachers and school administrators are their authority. For children, fathers and mothers are their authority. For citizens (and I suppose even illegal aliens), the officials we elect to government offices and law enforcement are authorities.

But ultimately God is the One in charge. God is our King. Jesus is our King… But Jesus isn’t on the earth reigning as King right now, is He? So how do we know what He, our authority, wants of us? He has given us His word, the Scriptures, which in Psalm 19 is referred to as the law of the LORD, the commandments of the LORD, and the judgments of the LORD.

What does it say about what we think of God if we believe His word to be inspired and inerrant, and yet we reject it as authoritative? It means we are rejecting God as our King, much the same way the Israelites did in 1 Samuel 8. Do you remember what happened to them? God gave them Saul, who was an epic failure. And Israel’s history would be one of many kings who did not consider God’s word authoritative, and brought disaster upon themselves and the people.

The Bible is authoritative. Not you. Not what you want. The Bible is authoritative, which is why Jesus repeatedly taught by telling people, “It is written…” Paul quoted the Old Testament. Peter did, too.

Many people can write things about God. We can have confessions and statements of faith, catechisms… but ultimately all of them have to be in line with what the Bible says, because the Bible, the word of God, is the only word that is authoritative. God is in charge through His word.

The sufficiency of Scripture (the one the professing Christian rejects)

The Bible is sufficient. Sufficient. Sufficient. Sufficient. What that means is that what God has given us in the Bible is enough. It’s enough.

If our Christian bookstores had nothing but the Bible in them that would be enough. The word of God is enough.

We don’t have to go looking for more from God, like signs and wonders and prophecies or visions or voices in our head or devotional books that claim to be what Jesus told somebody, because what God has given us in the Bible is enough.

The Bible tells us all we need to know about creation, all we need to know about the commandments, all we need to know about our own sin, all we need to know about our one and only Savior, Jesus. Read again toPsalm 19:7-9: “The law of the LORD is perfect, restoring the soul; The testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. The precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart; The commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring forever; The judgments of the LORD are true; they are righteous altogether.” God tells us… the Bible is enough.

Jesus Himself said, to Satan no less, “Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God” (Matt 4:4). He was quoting Deuteronomy 6, by the way.

A lot of people have a lot of ideas about how Christians should be, how families should be, how churches should be. But what matters is God’s word. Is what you believe what the Bible says, or do you rely on the Bible plus something else? Or do you maybe conveniently edit out in your practice parts of the Bible you don’t like quite as much. The Bible is sufficient. The Bible is enough. God has spoken. His word is what we need.(1)

Sola scriptura, of all the five solas, really was the foundation of the Protestant Reformation. By going back to the word of God — affirming that the Bible is God’s word (inspired), that it (unlike the opinions of men) is without error, that it is authoritative, and it is sufficient — Christians left the Roman Catholic Church, and now here we are today.

Then again, where are we today?

Rome certainly hasn’t repented, and yet Protestantism’s protests are decreasing, the willful ignorance of professing Christians is increasing, and many are shaking hands with a spiritual harlot, the one the Reformers called “antichrist.” Where is sola Scriptura?

It’s from the Scriptures we realize that the most important thing, period, is the glory of God, so we do all things to the glory of God alone (soli Deo gloria). It’s from the Scriptures we realize we are saved by Christ alone — His perfect life without sin and His death on the cross where He bore our sins, and His resurrection by which we are given eternal life (solus Christus). We’ll talk later on this semester about sola gratia, grace alone. Unlike what the Catholic Church teaches, Christians are saved by grace alone — God giving us what we do not deserve. We learn that from the Scriptures. And also sola fide, faith alone. We are saved by faith in Jesus Christ, not in the things we do, but by believing in Jesus and what He has done. It’s only through the Bible we learn this.

That’s why sola Scriptura is the indispensable doctrine. No matter how many times and how many different ways I repeat it in this post, I cannot tell you how important it is to realize how important the Bible is. It’s inspired by God. I’m not, but the Bible is. It’s inerrant. I’m not perfect, but the Bible is. It’s authoritative. I’m not in charge, but God is, and I find out what God wants from the Bible. And it’s sufficient. I’m not enough, but God is, and He gives me all I need to know in His word, the Bible, the Scriptures.

Sola scriptura. It is the indispensable doctrine. We can’t do without it. When we treat the Bible correctly, everything else we must believe will come.

Father, may Your church repent where it has decided Your word is not enough, and turn back to the Bible. Your word is truth. May we be sanctified by Your truth. May sinners hear Your truth and be made alive by the Holy Spirit. And may Your Son Jesus Christ be glorified as a result. Amen.

———-

(1) Let me be clear that my belief in the sufficiency of Scripture is not my way of saying we shouldn’t read Christian books and stuff like that. I’m not that guy. But I will say that our acceptance or rejection of any “Christian book and stuff like that” should be predicated upon a bedrock commitment to the sufficiency of Scripture. If what we read does not meet that standard, it should be discarded with yesterday’s trash.