Doctrine without Scripture?

Sometime ago I was reading the website of a Reformed Institution that had a page detailing its official views on justification. There is nothing at all wrong with saying where you stand on controversial issues. I could agree with some of the statements, some I could agree with if they were qualified, some I could not accept, and some were just flat out strange. But as I read this document with all of its assertions about justification, I noticed that it cited many catechisms and confessions but it did not cite Scripture even once in the entire document. This left me concerned and confused (that is PC for it scared the daylights out of me).

What role does Scripture have in Reformed theology? The approach taken in the anonymous document mentioned above is concerning because: (1) It replaces Scripture with the Confessions. (2) It makes the Confessions the mediator of Scripture. (3) It assigns, by implication, the authority of Scripture to the Confessions. (4) It turns the Confessions and its modern devotees into a new magisterium and thus undermines everything that the Reformers themselves fought against and even died for, the authority of Scripture in the life of the church: Sola Scriptura.

Let me head off two potential objections. First, that the Confessions are a summary of what Scripture teaches. Yes and No! The Confession constitute an attempt to summarize and systematize the teaching of Scripture. As such, I can happily sign my name on the dotted line underneath the WCF because I believe, all things being even, that it represents the mind of Scripture. However, the Confessions are also interpretations of Scripture by fallible human beings and they place Scripture in a theological framework also developed by human beings. Thus, they are one step removed from Scripture itself. To cite the Confession then is not the same as citing Scripture and neither should we ever presume to think so. Second, we all interpret Scripture in light of some tradition and there is no neutral perspective and no strictly biblicist approach to interpretation. I concede as much. The Confessions and Catechisms represent the fallible attempt of men and women to articulate the infallible truths of Scripture. The Confessions/Catechisms represent the mind of the Reformed Tradition. Tradition is a tool for reading Scripture. We should read Scripture in light of our Tradition, but we should also read Tradition in light of Scripture!

For those in the Reformed churches, I ask you, should we cite the Confessions rather than Scripture in our doctrinal forumulations? I say unto you: "nay" and "over my dead body"!

1. We have the example of the Bible itself where theological truth is defined by that which is "according to the Scriptures" (e.g. 1 Cor. 15.3-8) and theological truth is apprehended by being good Bereans and "searching the Scriptures" (e.g. Acts 17.11).

2. The example of the Reformers themselves would lead us to believe that Scripture must be primary in our theological formulations and church life (not just derivative from commentaries on Scripture). Calvin himself said: “Let us not take it into our heads . . . to seek out God anywhere else than in his Sacred Word, or to think anything about him that is not prompted by his Word, or to speak anything that is not taken from that Word.”

3. Semper Reformanda means testing our doctrine, polity, liturgy, and church life to make sure that it is in line with Scripture not in line with the Confessions (not rehearsing the mantra that the Confessions are substantially without error and engaging in deviant labelling of those who disagree).

4. This perspective is also the view of one of the Reformed Confessions. Let me cite to you the 1560 Scots Confession XVIII:

When controversy arises about the right understanding of any passage or sentence of Scripture, or for the reformation of any abuse within the Kirk of God, we ought not so much to ask what men have said or done before us, as what the Holy Ghost uniformly speaks within the body of the Scriptures and what Christ Jesus himself did and commanded. For it is agreed by all that the Spirit of God, who is the Spirit of unity, cannot contradict himself. So if the interpretation or opinion of any theologian, Kirk, or council, is contrary to the plain Word of God written in any other passage of the Scripture, it is most certain that this is not the true understanding and meaning of the Holy Ghost, although councils, realms, and nations have approved and received it. We dare not receive or admit any interpretation which is contrary to any principal point of our faith, or to any other plain text of Scripture, or to the rule of love.

Once upon a time, men could make doctrines for the Christian religion without reference to Scripture. It was called the Dark Ages. For the sake of the Reformation of the church, I urge my brothers and sisters in the Reformed churches to give serious consideration to the relationship between Scripture and Confession and not elevating (in practice especially) the latter over the former. Otherwise we will wake up one day and find ourselves enslaved to a new magisterium that claims to be biblical, but in practice, is far from it. There endeth the lesson.

Scripture and Confession

Chris Terry Nelson of Disruptive Grace, provides a good 10 point summary from Edmund Schlink's Theology of the Lutheran Confessions about the relationship between Scripture and Confession. My favourites were # 5 and # 9:

"(5) Dogmatics is bound by the Confessions as exposition of Scripture. This means again, obligation to Holy Scripture as the sole norm - obligation not so much to a specific exegesis as rather to Scripture itself. Not what men say about Scripture constitutes the sole norm, but what Scripture says to men. A Confession has no binding force apart from the fact that it correctly expounds Scripture. If we were bound to the Confessions simply because they claim to see the propriety of this claim on the basis of Scripture, the Confession would be, like the tradition of the Roman church, a second norm for dogmatics alongside Scripture. Doctrine cannot be bound to the Confessions in the sense of a fides implicita, that is, independent of a clear exegetical understanding of their scripturalness. The truth and binding force of a Confession does not rest simply on its claim - no matter how much that claim may be supported by respected church fathers at various times - but in its actual agreement with Scripture which ever anew discloses itself to exegetical study."

"(9) From all this it follows that we must carefully distinguish between a theology of the Lutheran Confessions and a text in dogmatics. If by a theology of the Lutheran Confessions we mean a faithful preproduction of their content in systematic order, this endeavor is not dogmatics. Again, dogmatics is not simply a repetition or repristination of the Confessions. Two facts must be considered: (a) The Confessions are the model of all church doctrine, including all dogmatic endeavor, which teachers of the church undertake and the results of which they present orally and in writing. As the voice of the church Confessions have more authority than the voice of an individual. (b) On the other hand, the norm for dogmatics is not the Confession, but solely the Holy Scriptures. Dogmatics, like the Confession, must teach the summary of Scripture. The possibility must be conceded from the start that dogmatics may, in the process of exegesis, question some of the confession formulations. Unlike a theology of the Confessions, dogmatics must, furthermore, review the consensus of the Confessions with the ancient church as well as the consensus of the Reformation age, develop them further, even call them into question."

In other words, the confessions of the church are not infallible, and Scripture always, always, always trumps the confessions!

HT: Ben Myers

Systematic Theology vs. Biblical Theology

I remember reading Mark Seifrid's 1992 monograph Justified by Faith where Seifrid commented that alot of the debate about the New Perspective on Paul comes down to a difference between those who want to read their Bible's historically and those who want to read the Bible theologically. This is particularly true in the Reformed world and is confirmed to me by two things:

(1) I read one book about the NPP which attacked the 18th century German scholar J.P. Gabler for allegedly trying to prevent systematic theology from being a tool for the church. That is just patternly false (if you don't believe me go read D.A. Carson's article on NT Theology in DLNTD or better yet go read Gabler yourself!) as Gabler wanted a biblical theology that would engage with what the biblical writers were actually saying on their terms and in their language and without having to conform to the categories, language, or findings of systematic theology. Importantly, Gabler also believed that good biblical theology should feed into systematic theology; he was not against systematic theology, on the contrary, he wanted to see it refined and become more biblically informed!

(2) Those who engage daily in the practice of biblical studies and having to actually study the Greek text of the NT in its historical context have a tendency to be more sympathetic to what the NPP is saying even if they do not fully agree with their findings. In contrast, those whose loyalty is primarily towards a theological system rather than to Scripture, have been particularly aggressive and scathing in their criticism (one or two particular books come to mind).

The difference is between those who say (1) "my authority is Scripture and I am willing to affirm a Confession in so far as it coheres and comports with Scripture"; and (2) those who say "my authority is Scripture as understood by the Confession". These are not the same thing. The second position is not "truly reformed" and it treats the Confession rather like the Mishnah of the Rabbis or the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church. Note: for more on the positive role and limitations of Reformed Confessions see Andrew McGowan's forthcoming book, The Divine Spiration of Scripture and his book Always Reforming.

I believe Stanley Hauerwas once said that "New Testament scholars ought to be lined up and run off of a cliff!" I would retort by saying that sometimes I think that all Systematic Theologians should be beaten to death with a soggy fish! Let me say that Systematics is a good thing, we need Systematics to have a comprehensive world view, to bring Scritpure together, and to answer questions not raised in Scripture. BUT, Systematics cannot demand that exegesis and historical study conform to its system. Theology may be the "Queen of the Sciences" but she is a puppet Queen sustained by the strings of exegesis and by the hands of biblical scholars.

As such I was pleased to read Reggie Kidd's recent contribution to the debate. This quote shows that while some theologians want to cleanse their denomination of certain types, even naming evangelicals as the bad guys, there are those of us who remain committed to the Bible, the evangelical tradition, and historic Orthodoxy. Reggie said this:

Battle as relentlessly and courageously as the Church of England’s N.T. Wright does to champion the view that Paul’s theology is animated by a comprehensive and integrated story of promise and fulfillment — scoring points against both the postmodern deconstruction of the biblical meta-narrative and the dispensational fracturing of the singular story of “the Israel of God” into dichotomous stories of “Israel” versus the “church” — and what do you get from your potential allies in the conservative reformed world? How about getting dismissed as importing an alien biblical theology into the established categories of systematic theology, as being vague about the atonement, and as compromising biblical authority? While we build careers at our potential friends’ expense, the hostile armies and navies amass. Nice work.

Read the comments section with some big names weighing into the debate: Doug Green, Steve Taylor, John Armstrong, John Frame, Scot McKnight etc. Do read the whole post! And for the otherside of the argument read the response by R. Scott Clark.

I Confess ...

In keeping with the "Confessions" meme doing the rounds (staring with Peter Leithart), I thought I would offer my own Confessions:

I confess that sometimes my academic work has caused my faith to feel purely cerebral and my learning sometimes puffs up into pride. Thus, I am grateful for the Anglican Prayer book, the Word of God, my local church, my colleagues, my students, and the convicting power of the Holy Spirit for making sure I finish the race set before me.

I confess that I really, really don't like Rudolf Bultmann. I find his brand of existential Deism nauseating and I think his scholarship oscillates between brilliant and banal.

I confess that I'm learning to love Karl Barth (shhh, don't tell Ben Myers).

I confess that Jesus Christ, crucified and risen, is Lord of all. This is the gospel and the testimony of the early church - all else is commentary.

I confess that N.T. Wright woke me from my dogmatic slumbers and showed me a world that I had never seen before, whatever his failings, I am most grateful for this.

I confess that only two good things came out of the seventies - Me and the musical Evita!

I confess that the greatest lessons in grace, love, sin, and forgivness that I have learned came from no text book, but from marriage and parenthood.

I confess that Calvin was (pretty much) right.

I confess that I spend far too much time writing and reading about the Bible rather than reading the Bible itself and obeying what it says.

I confess that I am weary of those who define the faith so narrowly and then try to tell lay persons that they themselves are the true gatekeepers of orthodoxy. I confess that I am equally weary of those who treat Scripture as if it were a cook book where one can pick and choose recipes as one likes.

I confess that when Richard Bauckham leaves St. Andrews, I will be the shortest New Testament scholar in Scotland (sigh!)

I confess that Ben Myers and Joel Willitts are two of the people that I have the closest academic comaraderie with.

I confess that New Testament scholarship must strive for historical accuracy, theological acumen, and be placed in service of the Church.