Reformed to What End?
Often one hears these days, in the modern “reformed”
movement, quotations from the reformers of old. You often see the Westminster
Confession referenced, and terms and creeds from the reformation era used as
official dialogue and prayer. The “doctrines of grace” and the TULIP acronym,
and the like, are often foundations for churches and gatherings. But is there
an issue with this?
Perhaps the reformers have taken too high a position in the
church. Perhaps their “doctrines” have taken the place of simple Truth, and
perhaps people now seek the words of the reformers sooner than they do the
apostles, or even Christ Himself. They often quote the Scriptures, but seem
more apt to quote the results there of sooner. It has bothered me as of late to
see the recent fads that have come up (such as the “Young, Restless and
Reformed” movement), and the actual errors that have come from these things.
The reformers were far from perfect, and though they spoke and wrote many
truths, they were (and are not still) the source of the Truth- the Bible is.
Within perhaps the coming weeks I will write a post (or series) on the issue of
being in the reformed movement, as compared to simply being Christ. Are there
benefits to believing the words of the reformers? Sure. But they are not our
foundation. Scripture is. Many like to quote the famous “sola scriptura” but
few actually live by that saying. The saying itself has actually taken a higher
place than the Truth it speaks of. The doctrines of grace (that is, the title
itself) have taken the place of the Truth of God’s grace within the Bible
itself. The Truth of the Word of God has been re-titled, and moved over to the
reformed era. And though it may not seem as much, it is grave error to pull
away from the Bible first and foremost, even if it is to something good.
Gaining good, and giving up what is Best, is far from a good idea.
Good thoughts, Tim! I myself need to be careful about keeping the focus on Scripture... on what God has written, not necessarily what MacArthur, Luther, or Anderson have. Oh, to quote more Scripture and admire all that Christ fulfilled in His lifetime. He certainly gave us more an ADVANTAGE than any of the greatest reformers combined.
ReplyDeleteThe latest fad these days is the Reformation, and it has just... irked me... it irks me still! What is good does not trump what is certainly best. We love the Word of God, not the words of the Reformers. They may be a great aid at times, but they are not our first source. Neither is history, nor feelings, nor anything outside of the true Word of God. The Reformers talked about Scripture alone... so... why do people focus on them?
ReplyDeleteCould not agree more regarding the ultimate and exclusive authority of Scripture. (For some other great defenses of this, see Westminster Confession Chapter 1 (esp section X) and associated scripture proofs, as well as Calvin's institutes book IV chap 9 (esp sect 8 good explanation of limits of credal authority)). It is sad how some in certain Reformed circles have begun to try to give too much authority to creeds (see When Shall These Things Be, chapter by Douglas Wilson for an example). This is exactly how the Catholic heresy on this point began.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I think there is a place for creeds and the works of respected theologians, i.e. it is probably unwise to be "solo scriptura". If we interpret Scripture in a vacuum, without regard to the historical context in which it was written, or the history of its interpretation by orthodox scholars, we run the risk of repeating the errors of countless heretics before us, as well as miss out on some of the greatest scriptural insights. While they have no authority except as they agree with scripture, these works can be used as a way of "standing on the shoulders of giants" especially when (as in the case of most creeds), they are heavily backed by scripture proofs.
I like to think of the creeds as "theorems" which, as in mathematics, once proven, we reference in the proof of other ideas, without having to go back and reread the proof(which we should have already verified to ourselves) unless they are challenged, or if we are interested. So long as the ultimate authority is not lost sight of, thus, creeds are quite useful (maybe it is just laziness).
Further, it can be useful when our interpretation of a text is less than certain or called into question to reference supporting views from mutually respected giants of the faith. They have no actual authority, but serve as a way of both referring to an argument better expressed than one can come up with, or as a way of showing that we are not alone in our views, but that others have seen the same things in Scripture. Even the reformers did this extensively. For example, Calvin, while more than willing to disagree with any church father if necessary, references them constantly throughout his works to support his positions, after, of course, making his purely scriptural arguments.
Overall I think that while there is a danger of slipping into giving too much authority to secondary references, there is a lot we can learn from the wisdom and scriptural arguments handed down by those who have gone before and withstood the test of time.
I agree... and disagree, on certain points.
DeleteI agree with the reality that there are many good references out there, and many good theologians who can make clearer the text of Scripture. There have been many lives that were lost for the name of Christ, and these must never be downplayed nor their work neglected utterly.
However, we must never forget their Foundation. We reference the writings and lives of the people only because they were of Christ, with their words founded upon the Word of God. They and their writings, however, were not flawless. Thus came the big point, "sola Scriptura." That did not mean "Never read anything but the Bible" but rather "Always look to Scripture first and foremost." This was the desire of most of the reformers- that people would go back to Scripture, not first to other sources. And thus has been the issue I have seen as of late. People quote plenty of good things. People have written and spoken and done many, many, many good things. But these are still not the 'best' things. And that is where the error lies. Scripture must always be the first source of Truth, because it is truly the only source of Truth. The writings of men later in time are results of the Bible, not the Bible itself. And as helpful and inspiring as these references are, they are only just that- references.
"But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; abstain from every form of evil." (1 Thess. 5:21-22.) Examine with what? (You of course know this answer.) Scripture! Thus we always compare all things, good or bad, to the Word of God. The words of the reformers are still the words of men. The words of the Confessions, creeds and the like are the words and creeds that men came up with. These are subject to examination. The Scripture is the pure Word of God, and must always be the foundation and Examiner. We know the Bible is flawless. We know it is best. So why look to other things (which are subject to failure) more than the Bible? And thus comes the problem when people quote references more than the Source.
Of course, I am going to let the series here on this blog make clearer my views on these things (whenever I get around to writing these things). The thing that worries me most about your responses is not their lack of Truth, so much as it is the lack of any references to Scripture itself. If we dare to call something Truth, we had better back it up with the Truth of God's Word ourselves. There is no room for laziness in the words of eternal life.
I agree with you completely (up to the last paragraph). In preaching, evangelism, or even in most serious doctrinal debates Scripture should (virtually always) be almost exclusively used, because it is as you say "the best" and has the most obvious authority due to its divine inspiration. Furthermore, it should be the primary focus of our study. At times, especially during theological discussions/ disagreements, or in conferences (where there is a time constraint) I think that using what is "best" is modified slightly at times to using what is "most useful" in efficiently and clearly making the point that a claim is indeed Scriptural. To slightly expand my previous comment, I think there are two primary uses here, without in any way compromising Sola Scriptura or our needed emphasis on Scripture. One, creeds which both parties are familiar with can be referenced as a way of reminding the other of Scriptural arguments that both have previously found convincing. For example, this is particularly helpful when technicalities about the Trinity are needed. The second use is when the user does not remember the details of a Scriptural argument, but remembers where one is found, and thus refers the other to it.
DeleteSecondly, an argument can be purely Scriptural without ever once explicitly quoting the Bible. This is the case when the parties have basic agreement on the interpretation of the passages in question, and they are so well known that the can be alluded to implicitly, and the rest of the argument built on them. No ambiguity results if it is done well.
Since you bring up our discussions, I'm not sure what you mean by claiming my arguments lacking Scriptural backing. If I remember correctly, both of us have quoted passages and discussed their interpretation. Moreover, every time I have quoted another source, it has been either as a way of reminding you of something I thought we agreed on (i.e. TULIP, or homoousios vs homoiousios), or as a reference to a discussion I found interesting/relevant, or contained a Scriptural argument not critical to the discussion at hand that I found convincing but which I could not remember enough details to repeat without my Bible. I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that you would own or have access to the book. The times I was not making an argument, but merely explaining what I believe, I may have referred to non Scriptural works, not as a way of convincing you, but primarily as a way of referring to works where what I claimed is more fully explained. Remember that I am in academia after all, and we love quoting other people whose work we found interesting even if we don't agree with them.
If you are referring to our eschatology discussion, at the time I was rather unprepared and lacked a copy of the Bible. As a result, I primarily limited myself to merely explaining what I believe without proof and poking holes in the arguments you tried to convince me with. I enjoyed the discussion as I learned what you guys hold and was interested to learn the arguments used by the premillenials, as I had only ever debated or read amillenials before. It has been a few years since I studied the topic, but given enough preparation I could reassemble the proof texts that I used to use if you are interested in revisiting the topic. Of course the only issue with eschatology is that the differences lie in how to interpret the texts as most are not very straightforward. As a result, any eschatological argument requires looking at the aggregate of all texts and determining which theory matches best.
(to be continued)
(continued from previous)
DeleteWhat I think is perhaps your weakness in these discussions is that you tend to refer to vague generalities about Scripture with little or no evidence to make your point. I can't really remember you explicitly referencing many more Scripture proofs than I did that standing alone had direct bearing on the topic. Correct me if I am wrong, but this seems to be your way of referencing ideas without proof that you had convinced yourself of or had been convinced of by others. I am doing the exact same thing, except I tell you where to find the proof. Don't interpret the quotes as an attempt at authority. I personally disagree with John Calvin on several points, and even with the original Westminster Confession (example: I don't think the Pope is the antichrist).
Overall, I have enjoyed our discussions and profited from them. I am sorry that you got the impression that I was not in the habit of using Scriptural arguments. Every time I refer to a non Scriptural source as something that I agree with, it is only because at one time I searched the Scriptures and came to agree with it. The Westminster Confessions, Canons of Dordt, and ecumenical creeds in particular are documents that I have spent years studying and at times questioning, all from a Scriptural basis. I have even argued against them using Scripture at times (most times later changing my views). Thus do not assume that I have not "done my homework" in testing what I believe with Scripture.
That said, I hope we continue to have these friendly discussions, not from a spirit of trying to win, but based on the principle of iron sharpening iron. Having these discussions is a great way of making sure we know what we believe and why we believe it, and to better defend it to others. I hope that now this misunderstanding is cleared up (hopefully), you agree that our disagreements are of quite minor importance when compared to all we agree on - soteriology, the doctrine of God, the doctrine of man, Creation, etc. etc.
P.S. If my references to either the L in TULIP or the idea that the Godhead is one being/essence still aren't clearly Scriptural to you, I would be more than happy to prove them to you with Scripture, now that I have spent some time studying them. Just let me know beforehand.
I don't have time to reply to all of the above. But allow me to make this clearer for you (that is, my position here): I am not saying that you never use Scripture. I am saying that, within the period of time I have talked to you, there wasn't really even much of a paraphrase to Scripture. Even in your agreement with this post, you referenced the Westminster Confession and the like. If you read through just one of my posts on this blog (which clearly, you have), you'll see that I never refer to the reformers, nor any confessions nor creeds, as proof of my words. I use Scripture as often as I can, and thus am on the most solid ground I could possibly be on. I do not believe there is the option of laziness when it comes to Scripture, much less then do I assume I can neglect using the Word of God due to time. If I am going to use anything, it will be the Source- the Truth- and that alone. Not the words of those who speak based on the Word, but speak the Word itself. Please do not misunderstand me- I am not against the reading nor using of these confessions, creeds nor anything of the reformers. But it is as Paul said, "But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!" (Gal. 1:8.) How is it we know if something is contrary to the Gospel of Christ? By comparing it to the Word thereof. Even the best of the reformers was subject to error, whereas the Scripture is not subject to any kind of error. History may contradict it, science may contradict it, and people in general may contradict it, but I hold fast to the Word first and foremost, and it is above everything. Do not forget that is often as they say, "History is written by the victor." To assume we can subject Scripture to history as some have done (such as the claims of certain events occurring in 70 AD) is a very dangerous error, as the history books have been written by those who survived the wars, sicknesses and the like. Scripture, however, was written by "men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." (2 Pet. 1:21.) Does history make a difference in how we see certain texts? Certainly. But history is not the foundation on how we see the Truth of God's Word, as no man knows with certainty the entirety of history apart from the Bible itself.
DeleteIf you look at those in our church, and listen to my Dad's sermons, you will see a different sort of group than is often seen in a church. I am not here to debate you, as much as either of us might like to debate often. I must admit, I do not desire debate at this point. I have grown weary of constantly debating points in which I have changed no one. I want to proclaim and discuss the Truth, according to the Word. Do I always quote verbatim the Bible? Haha, no. But I do my best to use it as proof. And that is part of the reason for my blog here- to place my thoughts on these many things, and keep it solely to Scripture as often as I can. History, creeds, confessions and past people can be fine tools. But they can also be very deadly. People never got the idea that the earth is billions of years old from the Bible. They got it from "scientific proof" from material things, and then twist and bend the Bible to affirm their beliefs, thus ignoring the important literal translation of Genesis. These are no small things, and thus I take them seriously.
But of course, this does not mean I am unwilling to talk about things. On the contrary, I am very open to discussing Truths with you. I love to affirm even the simplest of Truths, such as the Gospel, and the coming of Christ, and am happy to make clearer my beliefs. I love to discuss the the Truth! And since Gillian will not be there this Sunday, I am more free to discuss these things. There are a very, very great many things I disagree with in terms of the many ideas and such that have come from many people and groups. But I want to know better what I agree with. And as long as I know someone takes the Bible as the pure, perfect and divinely inspired Word of God, I am happy to talk things through. The call of a pastor is not to debate. Paul said in 2 Timothy 4, "preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction." (vs. 2) That is my goal.
Delete"Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment. For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you. Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, 'I am of Paul,' and 'I of Apollos,' and 'I of Cephas,' and 'I of Christ.' Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?" - 1 Corinthians 1:10-13