Skip to main content

Research Topic Cont.:

Does maintaining Sola Scriptura negate the appropriation of the confessions/creeds in exegetical study? Did the reformers have methodology in mind when they stated Sola Scriptura?

Said differently, Does 'proper' exegesis require the setting aside of confessional allegiances of faith in the act of interpreting the text?

If no, then to what confessions or creeds do exegetes/interpreters alike confess? There are so many creeds and confessions today! Just pick up John Leith's "Creeds of the Churches" and you will find several hundred pages of creeds and confessions. That is the question I will engage next. But for the moment, take creeds/confessions to mean that which has been agreed upon at Nicaea and in the Apostles Creed/Rule of Faith.

How does contemporary evangelicalism generally view the creeds/confessions? My own encounters and experiences with evangelicals over the years have confirmed that most people (in non-denominational/independent/free churches) are apprehensive, if not suspicious of the confessions/creeds. For example, after reading the Nicene Creed aloud and in unison at a church service in Dallas, my own brother (the son of a pastor) said something to the effect that he felt like he was in a "catholic" church because of his experience of confessing the Nicene Creed. Not only did his statement reveal ignorance concerning important Christian events (Nicaea, 325 A.D.), his statement also demonstrated a broader philosophical allegiance to the idea that we (as modern readers and interpreters) only need ourselves and our bibles and, if you are educated in our seminaries, our methodology to be fully mature believers.

It is also important to see how this question effects everyday life for Christians. Discipleship of new believers is obviously very important in the scriptures and to the health of the church. To be a disciple is to be a learner. What is it that the disciples are to learn? If evangelicals were true to their belief they would teach them how to study their Bible correctly (exegetical method) so that they can come up with the correct interpretations of scripture. Right? Obviously that cant be done or there would be mass chaos. But we do something fairly similar. What we actually do, is we teach new converts points of doctrine by a method called "proof-texting." No mentions are made of the creeds/confessions of the church which have been received, approved, and passed on for two thousand years. Not only does it effect the way we disciple, but it also effects the church gatherings.

Most evangelical services are structured this way:

1. Greeting/Invocation
2. Worship (i.e. a cool band playing cool sounding music with people singing along)
3. Offering/Announcements
4. Preaching/Talking - the Pastor's/Teacher's own, personal, devotional, exegetical study of a particular text for the week.
5. Invitation/Benediction

I suppose nothing is wrong with that order, but do you suppose something is missing? What about audience participation? What about a call to the audience to confess together the received points of doctrine passed down through the ages? Shouldn't an unbeliever who walks into a church on any given sunday know by the time he/she leaves the importance Christ more than he/she knows the importance of the new "capital campaign"? Shouldn't believers leave church feeling connected to the rich tradition found in the receiving and passing of doctrine to the faithful community more than they should feel connected to seven keys to "Become a Better You"? (Thank you, Joel)

Is it right to say that the scriptures have a legitimate partner? Should Christians read the creeds without Scripture? A hardy resounding "No!" is appropriate (especially from the faithful Bible-Church evangelical). My next question then is, Should Christians (especially new believers)read the Scripture without the appropriating of the confessions in his/her interpretation of the text? I would argue that it should not be done.

Popular posts from this blog

You and Whose Army?

America elects a pro-choice candidate and suddenly my fellow Christian brothers and sisters head for the hills screaming the world has come to an end. Are not abortion rates much higher in several other countries? Why aren't we just as concerned about "life" in those countries? America elects an economically progressive candidate and people are screaming "socialism" preparing for a Rapture. (An mid-1800's invention of conservative Christian theology). Doesn't America know that Democracy is one of the youngest political philosophies to be employed? Why do we think the fate of the world depends on the success of our economical and political philosophies? America is struggling economically, and Jesus is now coming back to rescue his 2000 year old church from this difficult tribulation. Doesn't America remember that its only 232 years old? Why does God's blessing equate with monetary blessing? Why do American Christians constantly tie the end of the ...

Pastor Or Theologian?

I received a facebook message from a long-lost college friend and roommate the other day. In his cordial greeting he noted, and correctly, that I had just graduated with a Masters in Theology. I really appreciated the recognition and congratulations, but what bothered me was his next question. He asked if I was "going to be a Pastor or a Theologian?" I laughed, not because I thought the answer to the question was obvious, but because of the fact that he dichotomized the two disciplines as mutually exclusive. My first reaction was to respond with a smart alec remark about his ignorance and misconstrued views of Christianity and its relationship to education, but then I had to stop and remember that he graduated from the same undergraduate institution which I graduated from, and probably, like me, attended a 'fundy' church growing up. Reminding myself of this context cooled me off a bit and I kindly responded that I would hope someday to do both. Nonetheless, what his ...
John Henry Newman sets out to defend the idea of Liberal (when I say "liberal" it is in the sense of a Liberal Arts degree)University for the training of young men. (His book is aimed at men and for the purpose of men... I dont know if the education of women at that time was still frowned upon). Within a series of nine discourses (which he initially delivered at the inaugural year of the University in Ireland)he sets out to defend his picture of what a University education should look like. Newman's arguments are logical and well defended with the arguments building, like a tower is built, upon one another. Each discourse takes up a specific thesis and is defended in the following pages. He first demonstrates that Truth is One, that is composed of one overarching, interrelated matrix. There are many systems of thought that are a play, but nonetheless, all Truth is delicately intertwined so that if you neglect one aspect of the Truth in essence you are unraveling the binds...