We will now look at the
principal objections which are advanced by the adversaries of creeds and
confessions.
1. The first objection which
is generally advanced against the use of creeds or confessions as a test of
orthodoxy is that it is superseding the Bible and making a human composition a
standard of faith.
Of all of the objections
against the use of creeds or confessions this one is the most specious of all.
When this objection is fully unpacked it usually runs like this: “The Bible is
the only infallible rule of faith and practice. It is complete and it needs no
human addition. It is understandable and therefore needs no human explanation.
Why then subscribe ourselves or call others to subscribe to any other creeds than
this plain, inspired, and perfect declaration of truth? Doesn't the use of a creed
or confession as a test of orthodoxy insult the Scriptures as a virtual
declaration that it is not infallible or sufficient?” As I said at the
beginning of this paragraph, this objection is the most specious of all
objections urged against creeds and confessions.
The whole argument is founded
on a false assumption. No Protestant has ever professed to regard his creed as
of equal authority with the Scriptures, and certainly not of paramount authority.
The creeds themselves reject this principle and so do all the defenses of creeds
that had ever been written. We've already urged several times that all that the
creed professes to be is an epitome, or summary of what the Scriptures teach.
Because it professes to be deduced from the Scriptures, it refers to the
Scriptures for all of its authority. Therefore when one subscribes to the creed
or confession he is not dishonoring the Bible, he is rather paying public
homage to it. By subscribing to that creed or confession, he is declaring how he understands the Bible, and what
doctrines he considers the Bible to contain.
Let me summarize what I'm
saying. Socinians profess to believe the Bible, but understand it to be
teaching the mere humanity of Christ. Arians profess to believe the Bible, but
understand it to be teaching that Christ is a mere creature, albeit the most
exalted of creatures. Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians profess to believe the
Bible, but interpret it in such a way as to denigrate the grace of God and
magnify human nature. I profess to believe the Bible, and I believe with all my
heart that it is the infallible word of God, the only perfect rule of faith and
practice, and the only ultimate test of all controversies. And I believe it to
teach the total depravity of human nature, the Deity of Christ, the Trinity of
Persons in the Godhead, justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ,
and regeneration and sanctification by the Holy Spirit. I profess these to be
the fundamental principles of the plan of salvation. Now I ask: What is there in
all these statements that is dishonoring to the Bible? What have I said to
denigrate its ultimate authority? Haven’t I simply stated what I believe to be
revealed in that Word? Documents such as the 3 Forms of Unity, the Westminster
Standards, and the 39 Articles of the Church of England are chock-full of
Scripture. Every sentence of every paragraph of every article reveals their
dependence and subservience to the Bible.
As a subset of this argument
it may be asked what right has any man, or church to interpose their authority
to deal out the sense of Scripture for others. Is this not an improper
assumption over the minds of our fellow men? I would argue that this reasoning
proves too much, and therefore proves nothing. If we admitted the force this logic
then all preaching of the gospel would be presumptuous, because preaching
always consists in explaining and enforcing the meaning of Scripture – in the
words of the preacher himself! This line of reasoning carried to its logical
conclusion would force us to say that no minister of the gospel should do
anything but simply read the very words of Scripture from the pulpit in the
original languages. All translations of the Bible are the words which uninspired
men have chosen to express the sense of the original words. So if we admit the
objection that no man is at liberty to teach the revealed truth of Scripture in
a way which undertakes to assert the sense of Scripture over the minds of others,
then we must say that no man is at liberty to speak in the pulpit except he
read the Hebrew text of the Old Testament and the Greek text of the New
Testament. This is the logical and legitimate consequence of that erroneous
argument.
In short, this whole line of
argumentation is nothing but a red herring. It sets up a false premise, which it
attacks, and then declares it has won the day. It is a sad day for your cause
when the best you can do in your favor is to misrepresent your opponents and
their positions.
No comments:
Post a Comment