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.