pilgrim people

OK, maybe we won't wrap this series up just quite yet. There are still a couple of points to be made. Perhaps we might do this by asking, Do creeds and confessions threaten the principle of Sola Scriptura? Many people would say they do. In fact, the ecclesiastical climate in American evangelicalism (which has made huge inroads into Reformed and Presbyterian circles) is very adverse to creeds and confessions. Why is that?

In his book The Democratization of American Christianity, Nathan O. Hatch presents a provocative reassessment of early-American Christianity and its development in an egalitarian culture. Hatch documents the rise of “biblicist” Christianity, its appeal to the democratic spirit of the American masses, and its opposition to confessional Christianity, viz., Calvinism. In their attempt to have “no creed but the Bible,” the biblicists propagated an anti-authoritarian, anti-traditional religion that made Sola Scriptura a license to think and say whatever they pleased. According to Hatch, these professing Christians misunderstood Sola Scriptura by making it a principle for the primacy of the individual conscience rather than the primacy of the Bible’s authority.

So, what is the principle of Sola Scriptura then? The Latin term, birthed in the Protestant Reformation, simply means, "by Scripture alone." It is a slogan that stands for the principle that Scripture alone is the written authority and inerrant rule for the church's faith and life (BC 5, 7; WCF 1; WLC Q.3; WSC Q.2). The Reformers rejected Rome's attempt to bind the consciences of Christians with doctrines and moral regulations that weren't found in Scripture. The Reformers asserted that only the Bible has the ultimate authority to bind the consciences of believers, and that the church cannot maintain infallibility in interpreting it.

For the Reformers, Sola Scriptura also meant the right and responsibility for every Christian to read, understand, and obey God's Word with the rest of the church, especially under the direction and guidance of official pastors and teachers. The reason for this was that over and against Rome, the Reformers believed the Bible produced and shaped the church, rather than the opposite. Believers and their children, therefore, were to be catechized in biblical doctrine in order that they might "rightly divide the Word of truth." Any notion of studying the Scriptures apart from the church and without ministerial guidance was altogether foreign to the Reformers' understanding of Sola Scriptura. The right of private interpretation did not give an individual the right to interpret the Bible any way he pleased. The Bible is not a wax nose to be twisted and shaped in order to fit one's subjective opinion. 

Reading Hatch's presentation of biblicist-Christianity leaves one with the impression that little of the above was properly understood by those he studies. Rather than an emphasis upon the Scriptures as the authority to shape and govern the church, emphasis was put upon a "radical Bible-centeredness" in privatized religion in which individual opinion ruled. The most two distinctive features of biblicism's primacy of the individual conscience are its populist hermeneutics and its egalitarian ecclesiology. In forthcoming posts, I will briefly evaluate these.

But in the meantime, what do you think? Do creeds and confessions threaten Sola Scriptura? Are the two antithetical?

As we wrap up this four-part series of posts on why we need creeds and confessions, I want to make the brief point, without repeating what has already been said in the previous posts and comments, that creeds and confessions provide basic instruction on the essentials of the historic Christian faith.

Creeds and confessions help us “connect the dots” of the Bible. They instruct us on the doctrine which arises from the story of redemption. They are one of the ways the church fulfills her responsibility to “Go…and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that [Christ has]commanded.” (Matt 28.18-20) The church has the responsibility to teach apostolic doctrine, which has been laid as a foundation for our faith. Incidentally, this is why we call is the Apostles’ Creed. It is not because we believe that the apostles themselves wrote it, but because it is a faithful expression of apostolic doctrine, which Christ commanded his church to teach and continue in.

Moreover, this is why the Reformation gave us rich catechisms. The Heidelberg Catechism goes through the Apostles’ Creed and explains it, line by line, so that we are instructed in what we believe and why we believe it. You see, we don’t confess the Apostles’ Creed or any creed or confession without reading it critically and understanding it. But when we do, we should be able to say with the Reformed churches in 1561-62, who sent a copy of the Belgic Confession to the Roman Catholic King Philip II along with a letter that said that they were ready to obey the government in all lawful things, but that they would “offer their backs to stripes, their tongues to knives, their mouths to gags, and their whole bodies to fire” rather than deny the truth expressed in their confession.

Are you ready to say that? Are you willing to die for what you confess to believe is true? Are you ready to stand with the historic Christian church and confess what she has confessed through the ages? Are you prepared to teach these things diligently to your children, and talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise?

Indeed, it requires work. It means we cannot be lazy. But this is a necessary part of every Christian’s growth and survival; to take up the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God, and not let the sword drop from our hands. We must be willing to work our doctrinal confession into the fabric of our lives. What we confess should consistently be part of who we are, our worship, our prayer life, our evangelism, everything.

On Tuesday night, Mr, Chuck Tedrick, a member of Christ URC and a second-year M.Div student at Westminster Seminary California, sustained his licensure exam in accordance with URCNA Church Order Appendix 1. As was announced in the bulletin on the previous Lord's Day, Mr. Tedrick's examination was open for viewing by members of Christ URC as well as the churches of our Classis. Mr. Tedrick has been granted a license to exhort for the next year, in which he will work under Pastor Brown's and the seminary faculty's guidance. This is designed as part of Chuck's training and preparation for the ministry. Congratulations Chuck!

The reading this month is chapter 5 of Packer's Knowing God.

Click to read more ...

It is interesting to note that creedal statements often appear in Scripture. For example, in Deuteronomy 6, we read the great Shema: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.” The Jews recited this creed since the days of Moses. It was a critical creed, because it protected the Israelites from the heresy of polytheism, that is, the belief that there are many gods. When Israel received this creed, they were in the process of being brought out of Egypt where they had lived for over 400 years. Egypt was a culture steeped in polytheism. There were deities for virtually every conceivable area of the universe. There was a god for fertility, a god for agriculture, a god for rain, a god for the sun, etc. Coming out of Egypt and into the promised land of Canaan, it was vital for Israel to know that the only true and living God was one. He alone is the one who made the sun, moon and stars, who filled the air with birds, the sea with fish and created all animals and mankind. He alone is sovereign over all. This simple creed of the Shema had the effect of protecting Israel against the false teaching of polytheism.

We also see creedal statements in the New Testament. In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul sought to correct the terrible heresy circulating in the Corinthian church which denied the bodily resurrection.

Click to read more ...