In a postmodern world that questions, in the words of Pointious Pilate 'What is truth', what bedrock can we stand on as our guide in the face of trials and scrutiny? "My conscience is captive to the Word of God. Thus I cannot and will not recant"- These are the famous words of Martin Luther as He stood before the Diet of worms defending the truths that are taught plainly in scripture. It was the reformation theologians that recaptured the absolute sufficiency and uniqueness of Scripture. This is affirmed by the words of Sergius Bulgakov (1871 - 1944) who stated that scripture is "above all the sources of faith, especially of all tradition in all its forms," holding that Scripture is self attesting as "an inherent witness to itself," while tradition depends on it." (Sergius Bulgakov, The Orthadox Church,1935, pg 28, 22) We, like them must return to, and stand solely upon, the means of grace, the Word, for through it the church is created by God's Spirit as "Christ not only creates a redeemed communion but governs it as Prophet, Priest, and King. The church [therefore] is the recipient of God's saving revelation, never a source." (Michael Horton, The Christian Faith for pilgrims on the way, pg 186) Will we, like Luther stand firm to God's word and defend it from those who would desire to have it twisted? Let us be refreshed by the spirits work as it illuminated the scriptures to such amazing minds as Calvin and Luther, so that we can stand with them guarding the good deposit.
The Crucial difference between Roman Catholic and confessional reformed protestant interpretations is that, while Rome gives itself final infallible interpretive authority, protestants see the teaching office as dependent upon the illumination of the Spirit for its fallible interpretation of the infallible canon inspired by the Spirit. In other words, protestants belief that Scripture is the ultimate authority critiquing the church as our judge on all matters of faith and practice, whilst Rome sees itself as the judge.
In his Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin challenges the idea that the church is the mother of Scripture saying: "[Paul] testifies that the church is 'built upon the foundation of the prophets and apostles' [Eph. 2:20]. If the teaching of the prophets and apostles is the foundation, this must have had authority before the church began to exist" (1.7.2). Unless the credibility of doctrine is established by divine rather than human authority, our consciences will always waver. Those who seek to first prove the reliability of Scripture by appeals to an authority external to it (whether church or reason) are "doing things backwards" (1.7.4). "Scripture indeed is self authenticated; hence, it is not right to subject it to proof and reasoning" (1.7.5). Once this divine authority is firmly establishes, we may certainly appeal to such external arguments, including the churche's ministerial authority, as "very useful aids" (1.8.1). "In this way, we willingly embrace and reverence as holy the early councils, such as those of Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus 1, Chalcedon, and the like, which were concerned with refuting errors - in so far as they relate to the things of faith" (4.9.1).
Robert Rollock responded to Rome, saying that far from a dead letter waiting to be animated by a living church or apostle, Scripture is "most effectual, most lively, and most vocal, sounding to every man an answer of all things necessary unto salvation... For the Scripture contains in it the word of God, which is lively and powerful (Heb. 4:12). (Richard Muller, PRRD, 1:34) It is the Scriptures themselves that declare that they are living and active, Rollock adds. "The voice of the church.... doth depend on the voice of the Scripture," since the church often errs. After all, "the church is born and bred, "not of mortal, but of immortal seed, which is the word of God", 1 Peter. 1:23." (Ibid)
Protestants had no trouble agreeing that there was a time when written Scripture and oral tradition were two media of a unified revelation, but they denied that this situation applies in the postapostolic era. William Ames makes this point saying that in substance, the Word preceded and in fact created the church, although this oral tradition, where "some twenty to eighty years passed before the traditions were committed to writing" (William Perkings, "A reformed Catholic, 1970, pg 547), was later committed to textual form. (William Ames, The Marrow of Theology, 1968, page 187)
The critical question for us is whether the non inspired traditions of ordinary ministers of the church can be equated with the revelation given through the extraordinary ministry of prophets and apostles. Jesus excoriated the religious leaders for raising "the tradition of men" (Mk. 7:8) to the level of God's Word. "So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God" (Mt. 15:6). On the other hand, Paul exhorts the Thessalonians to "stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter" (2 Th. 2:15). A chapter later he warns them to keep away from those who are not walking "in accord with the tradition that you received from us" (2 Th. 3:6). In spite of their strife and immaturity, Paul commends the Corinthians "because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you" (1 Co. 11:2).
Reformed church creed and doctrine are not inspired by God, but illuminated from the Scriptures by the Spirit as subservient to them. Thus they are regarded as authoritative because they are "clearly revealed in the Word of God, formulated by some competent church body, and regarded as authoritative, because they are derived from the Word of God." (Louise Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 1996, pg 19) Where Rome holds that the faithful must believe everything that the church teaches, based on the authority of the church, Protestants maintain that we must believe everything that the Scriptures teach even if an angel or apostle were to bring a different gospel (Gal. 1:6-9). The distinction is between the extraordinary apostolic office and the ordinary offices of ministers and elders. The scriptures are sufficient. If the ancient church recognized postapostolic tradition as an extension of apostolic tradition, why did their criteria for recognizing canonicity limit authorized texts to those of apostolic origin? Surely these ancient bishops did not regard tradition as a form of ongoing revelation; in fact, it was precisely against this view of the Gnostics that Irenaeus and others the acted. And so Johannes Wollebius asks,
"What can be more absurd than to make the words of the Master to receive their authoirty from the servant... or that the Rule should have its depedence from the thing ruled?... we know that the oracles of God are committed to the church, Rom. 3:2, and that she is the pillar and ground of truth, 1 Ti. 3:15. But as it is foolish to tell us that the candle receives its light from the candlestick that supports it, so it is ridiculous to ascribe the Scripture's authority to the church." (Reformed dogmatics, 1965)
Paul said that he had "laid a foundation, and someone else is building upon it" (1 Cor. 3:10). That is the order: apostolic foundation followed by the ordinary ministry of the church on that basis. "For no one can lay a foundation other than that which laid, which is Jesus Christ" (v 11). If Paul could warn the Corinthians "not to go beyond what is written" (1 Cor. 4:6), then surely those of us living in postapostolic times are no less obliged to this principle. Paul in effect invoked the principle of sola scripture in forbidding the saints from going beyond the written texts.
The sufficiency of Scripture is inseparable from both its scope and its Perspicuity (or clarity). Rome's contention has been that Scripture itself is difficult to understand, especially by laypeople, and that it therefore requires an infallible interpreter.
Luther destroyed the three lines of defense that the Church had erected to justify its teachings. Those three walls included the distinction between the clerical and the lay members of the Church, the claim that the Pope was the supreme interpreter of Scripture, and the teaching that the Pope was the supreme authority in the Church.
Luther refuted these claims drawing attention to the bibles teaching of the priesthood of all believers. Scripture teaches that as christians "you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ... you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light." (1 Peter 2:5, 9) And again Revelation 1:5-6 says "to him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood 6 and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever." Rome claimed exclusive power over the priesthood that had been transformed into a sacrificial system by the Mass. In contrast, Luther demonstrated time and time again that the true priesthood was the one Christ conferred on every believer. Before the teaching of the priesthood of the believer, Rome's false claims of spiritual superiority had to give way.
The Pope's claim that he alone had the authority to interpret correctly the Scriptures also fell to the ground. There was no biblical justification for such a claim. The same was true for the superiority of the Pope over Church Councils. Any Christian had the right, even the responsibility, to call council of the Church when it became evident that reformation was needed.
At the diet of Worms in 1521, when being asked to recant of his teaching against the Roman Catholic Church, Martin Luther famously exclaimed:
"Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Holy Scriptures or by evident reason-for I can believe neither pope nor councils alone, as it is clear that they have erred repeatedly and contradicted themselves-I consider myself convicted by the testimony of Holy Scripture, which is my basis; my conscience is captive to the Word of God. Thus I cannot and will not recant, because acting against one's conscience is neither safe nor sound. God help me. Amen."
No comments:
Post a Comment