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

A response to my beloved mother: part 2

READ THIS POST FIRST MY MOTHER : "I'm a registered Conservative, but my vote counted since they endorsed McCain, so I guess it all depends on who the Libertarian's endorse, and even if it were someone difference, at least you would have had a part in voting for the "most" righteous candidate, and McCain was the one even though he's still not the Christian ideal! Remember, Bill Clinton was a "pro-choice" candidate as well as one who furthered the homosexual agenda, so it wasn't surprising to me that 9/11 happened after his term was up and it's not surprising that the economy is faltering so badly now, and it won't surprise me if Obama continues the downward spiral, even if it is into socialistic policies since that's how Europe has gone since they left off looking to God. It doesn't matter what the rest of the world is doing since the majority have been anti-God for so long and their nations have paid for that for centuries (Dark...

I don't have all the answers, but I do have two cents.

My friend and fellow recovering ex-fundamentalist , I greet you joyously knowing the freedom you have found in leaving fundamentalism, however I am saddened by your departure as a whole from our Lord. I indeed understand the hardship which you have faced is cause for questioning God’s existence, faithfulness, and love to his creation. I would like to respond to you because I feel like I understand your socio-religious background. Let me first tell you my goal is not to re-convert you, but rather to give you a second thought from one who grew up in similar roots, whose posture of faith remains bent toward the gospel. I also grew up in ultra-conservative fundamentalism. If names like Peter Ruckman, Jack Hyles, Arlin Horton, etc, mean anything to you than you will understand. I graduated from PCC. OMG. I cannot believe it, but it’s true. What a crazy place. Fear, guilt, shame, legalism were the name of the game! As long as you “caught the spirit” all of life would be good and God would b...

The Intolerance of Presbyterian Creeds

The bind between American political allegiance and Protestant evangelical conservatism is a key which unlocks the door of much early American civil history especially during the antebellum era through the early 20th century. To be conservative and American meant that you must regard a Protestant form of Christianity, namely the revivalistic, moral gospel which declared a morally conservative view of the socio-political system as king. In fact, not to be Protestant and politically conservative was in line with defaming the stars and stripes. Hart describes a situation in the early 20th century where the state of Utah elected and appointed a Mormon Apostle, Reed Smoot, to the U.S. Senate. Smoot underwent serious investigation from a Senate appointed committee to deliberate upon the ability of a Mormon to function in the place of a Senator given his religious views. The conservative Protestant ethos of the age was skeptical of any other religious conviction in its ability to be “American”...