While I yearn desperately to flee from a contentious
spirit, and while I do not delight in controversy for its own sake, I feel the
need to respond publicly to a statement made publicly. Perhaps it can be seen
that friends who differ can have significant intellectual and graceful
conversations about the things of God.
It was said,
“For a
group supposedly defined by the motto "Sola Scriptura", the reformers
sure did have a remarkable affinity for extra-biblical creeds and confessions.
Also, if the great Martin Luther found "Sola Scriptura" so important,
why did he devote so much ink and paper to focus directing prefaces in his
translation of the scriptures?
Perhaps
Luther still stubbornly clung to the Catholic idea that the "laymen"
needed adequate clerical guidance in order to understand God's word. Perhaps
this is still a problem with "reformed" theology...”
Regarding an “affinity for extra biblical creeds and
confessions.”
I think you misunderstand and misrepresent the nature of
creeds and confessions. They do not take the place of Holy Scripture, but they are
rather, helpful statements of what we believe the Scriptures teach. That is why
they are used, because they are succinct and memorable. The word “creed” comes
from the Latin “credo” meaning, “I believe.” Any time you say that you believe
something, you are making a creedal statement. Perhaps a good example of this
is a belief in the Trinity. You can summarize what you believe the Bible
teaches concerning the eternal tri-personhood of God existing in one perfect
being by making the statement, “I believe in the Trinity.” You wont find the
word Trinity in the bible, however you will find the doctrine taught in its
pages. By stating that you believe that God is a Trinity, you are making a
confession of your faith. We are told to teach what accords with sound doctrine
(Titus 2:1) to, build our selves up in our most holy faith (Jude 20) and to be
ready at all times to give a defense for the hope that is within us (1 Peter
3:15). Do you expect then the believers to refrain from making statements of
that most holy faith? The sometimes heard “No creed but Christ,” is unbiblical,
unhelpful and manifestly untrue since it, being itself a creedal statement, is
logically invalid.
Furthermore, creeds and confessions should be understood as
historical responses to controversy and heresy. They are written to take a
stand on what is believed to be true regarding essential doctrines, like the
person and work of God the Father and Jesus over against the denial of those essential
doctrines. They are “boundary
markers that set the rules for intelligent, creative conversation about God and
his creation.”[1] They are
cherished for their succinct statements that help Christians distinguish
between essential and non-essential beliefs; focus their faith and worship on
the issues that matter most; and articulate clearly how their beliefs differ
from other teachings.[2] They have
never ever been thought of as replacing the study or reading or preaching of
Scripture, which as Sola Scriptura teaches is the only infallible rule of faith and practice, it alone is the word of
God, it alone is the final authority of Christian doctrine, and all other
authorities in the church are subordinate to, and are to be corrected by, it.
Concerning Luther and his supposed “stubbornness in
clutching to the Catholic idea that the “layman” needed adequate clerical
guidance in order to understand God’s word.” (Slightly reworded).
I think you here, like before, both misunderstand and
misrepresent the heart of the Reformation. Luther believed that Rome held
Christians “captive.” Bruce Shelly explains “he attacked the papacy for
depriving the individual Christian of his freedom to approach God directly by
his faith, without the mediation of priests.”[3]
From the heart of the Reformation comes the teaching of the priesthood of all
believers. We stand directly before God and are accountable to him, and have
the right to study the Scriptures and worship God as he reveals himself there,
and we furthermore have the right to do it in our own language. This last point
is what drove men like John Wycliffe, Martin Luther and the King James
translators to translate the bible into the native tongues of their people.
Martin Luther specifically wanted to translate from the original languages,
since the current German translation was done from the Latin Vulgate. To the
question-where does religious authority lie?-Luther responded: “Not in the
visible institution called the Roman Church, but in the Word of God found in
the Bible.”[4]
Michael Horton explains, “‘Scripture is not the word of the Church; the church
is the church of the Word.’ Therefore, ‘the church is the hearing church.’[5]
Only because the church passes on what it has heard is its authority something
other than an arbitrary exercise of institutional power.”[6]
As Reformed people and Evangelicals, we believe that grace
is immediately connected to the believers. That is, that the grace of God does
not have a necessary sacramental medium through which it works ex opere operato, that is by the working
of the thing it self. I am accountable directly to God, and Christ alone is the
ground of my salvation and mediator between God and man. While we certainly
believe that God has given gifts of preaching, teaching, insight and exegetical
skill to men who will become Elders and Deacons, who will instruct and teach
the congregations, and that many things are difficult to understand (2 Peter
3:16), we do not believe that they themselves are the arbiters of truth. Every
Christian has the responsibility to weigh everything by Scripture and to
earnestly seek the face of God in prayer as they look for Scriptural understanding.
Luther and all the rest of the reformers believed this, and those who are
confessionally Reformed today also believe these things. To say that we don’t or
they didn’t is entirely fallacious. The Westminster Confession states in 1.4,
“The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and
obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or church; but wholly upon
God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be
received, because it is the Word of God.”
I’m not quite sure why you even venture to write these
things. Do you deny Sola Scriptura? Or perhaps you are meaning only to undercut
Reformed theology by setting up straw men. Perhaps you don’t know that they are
straw men. I’m not certain what you have read or heard that compels you to say
what you’ve said, but I believe it is misleading, and should be corrected. It
furthermore seems rather silly to think that since Luther believed in Sola
Scriptura and thought that it was important, that he should have some limit
set, by whom I have no idea, on just how much ink he is allowed to use and
pages he is allowed use when writing prefaces.
In thinking about the place of creeds and confessions, I
will end with an apt admonition given by Dr. David Steele. He says, “Remember
that godly people gave their lives to hammer out the creeds and confessions to
protect the church from theological wolves. The creeds were carefully and prayerfully fashioned so we
might know and worship Christ rightly.
This Christ is the uncreated One who himself created all things (Col.
1:16). He was born of the virgin
Mary (Luke 1:26-35), the Savior who was tempted as we are, yet without sin
(Heb. 4:15; 1 Pet. 2:21-24). This
Christ perfectly obeyed the law of God, died on the cross for sinners, and rose
on the third day for our justification (1 Cor. 15:3-5; Rom. 4:25; Acts
2:22-24). This Christ is fully God
and fully man and stood in the place of everyone who would ever believe (Gal.
3:13; Isa. 53:4-6), bearing their sins (2 Cor. 5:21), satisfying the wrath of
God (Rom. 3:23-26), redeeming them from hell (Col. 1:13-14), and reconciling
them to a God (Rom. 5:10). And
this Christ is worthy of our undivided allegiance, devotion, and worship!”[7]
[1] Benjamin Galan. Creeds and
Heresies, Then and Now pamphlet. Rose. Torrance, CA. 2009. Print
[2] ibid
[3] Bruce Shelly. Church
History in Plain Language. Pg. 241. Nelson. Nashville, TN. 1995. Print
[4] ibid. pg. 246.
[5] Horton is here quoting John
Webster’s work Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic
Sketch.
[6] Michael Horton. The
Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way. Pg. 200. Zondervan.
Grand Rapids, MI. 2011. Print
[7]
http://baldreformer.wordpress.com/2010/05/06/no-creed-but-christ/
No comments:
Post a Comment