history

How the Bible Relates to Man-Made Creeds (Nettles) – Founders: The Blog

/ William F. Leonhart III / Leave a comment

This morning, Rick Patrick posted an article on SBC Today entitled “The Rise of Soteriological Traditionalism.” In this article, he explains how the Traditionalist Statement was a natural product of a necessary movement in the SBC to balance its soteriology. Have I mentioned I hate the way Christians often over-use the word balance? It’s sooo imbalanced! But I digress. Having read the aforementioned article, I can’t help but think that Nettles’ article below might have perhaps been written, at least partially, in reaction to it.

_________________________

The pivotal question of how one concedes authoritative force to a creedal, or confessional, proposition holds paramount importance in their use in pedagogical and disciplinary ways. If churches, associations, or denominations as a whole are to use their creeds as instruments of ordination, church instruction, and discipline, then some method of demonstrating the biblical character of their propositions must be clearly conceived. Phillip Schaff rightly reminds Christians, that “the Bible has, therefore, a divine and absolute, the Confession only an ecclesiastical and relative, authority.” Additionally, he warns that “any higher view of the authority of symbols is unprotestant and essentially Romanizing.” Having issued that caveat, he proposed, “Confessions, in due subordination to the Bible, are of great value and use.” He called them “summaries of the doctrines of the Bible, aids to its sound understanding, bonds of union among their professors, public standards and guards against false doctrine and practice” (Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 3 volumes, 1:7, 8.)

Confidence in the biblical authenticity of a creed’s content comes by familiarity with its historical and doctrinal context compared with the way each party interpreted Scripture. Creeds and confessions help us in consolidating the exegetical options that have characterized disagreements in the history of Christianity. They set forth propositions that are the summation of a particular group’s understanding of what Scripture teaches. The confessional propositions make possible close investigation as to their biblical fidelity and acceptance or rejection on that basis. If the creedal proposition is accepted as an accurate synthesis of biblical truth, that proposition becomes an element of an interpreter’s exegetical principles. Keep reading…

Cultural Footprints in Public Discourse

/ William F. Leonhart III / Leave a comment

Take a brief moment today to consider name-calling as a rhetorical device. Most of us would agree that it is disgusting when a person calls another person a name simply for the purpose of stigmatizing his or her ideas. This is a terrible approach to debate and dialogue. It may work to solidify opposition among the less astute, but it is nonetheless little more than mud-slinging. Not every use of names can be reduced to mud-slinging, though.

We would do well to recognize that many very historical names leave behind massive cultural footprints. Granted, sometimes people can be falsely charged as Marxists, Pelagians, Hitlers, and the like. However, to evoke one of these names—and myriad others—in a spirited debate, is not necessarily reducible to mud-slinging. In fact, oftentimes, when we reduce the use of these historical names in the cultural dialogue to mere mud-slinging, we run headlong into the error of denying cultural footprints and we demonstrate that we are ignorant of history.

For instance, a person who has studied church history should be very aware of the Pelagian debate where Augustine asserted that men must be enabled by God to do what He requires us to do. Pelagias responded that God would not require anything of us that we are incapable of accomplishing. When some professors and seminary presidents respond to Calvinists with the same line of argumentation and, subsequently, they are told they are making Pelagian arguments, they will often accuse their brothers of mud-slinging. By accusing Calvinists of mud-slinging, simply because they did not (directly) receive their argumentation from Pelagius himself, they deny Pelagius’ cultural footprint and / or demonstrate that they are ignorant of a major debate in church history.

Likewise, a person who has studied political history should be very aware of the Marxist debate where Marx and Engels asserted that a narrative must be forwarded that pits oppressors against oppressed so that a one-world communist utopia could arise. Marx and Engels primarily focused on economics, but they were also for the toppling of other institutions as well, like the family and the church. For them, any destabilization would lead ultimately to revolution, and revolution could only make possible the rise of their desired utopia.

So, when Christian leaders start to smuggle this language of oppressor and oppressed into the church, the idea of a power struggle between classes even within God’s church, some have rightly called them on the use of a Marxist tactic. Yet, predictably, they claim that this recognition of Marxism is nothing more than mud-slinging. By accusing their detractors of mud-slinging, simply because they do not (directly) receive their argumentation from Marx and Engels, they deny Marx’s and Engel’s cultural footprints and / or demonstrate that they are ignorant of a major debate in political history.

Conclusion

The next time someone uses a name you consider to be very negative to describe your position, try not to respond with a knee-jerk reaction and accuse them of mud-slinging. Rather, ask them why they make that connection. You may have imbibed a cultural footprint of which you are unaware. You may have a blind spot in your understanding of history. The other person may have a very valid reason for the connection he or she is making and, if he or she doesn’t, you can offer a more gentle correction than merely accusing him or her of mudslinging.

Your Thoughts on Halloween

/ wifewithpurpose / 14 Comments

On yesterday, I was asked a question that I knew would eventually come up: What do you guys do for Halloween?

Now, I always have a slight smile when I hear this question for two reasons. First, the question amuses me because I’ve only been asked this question around White Christians. This actually wasn’t really a discussion in the Black church. So the fact that this has only been a discussion in predominantly White churches is always amusing to me. Secondly, I’m never sure of the kind of reaction that I’ll receive from the person who is asking me. Some people will thoughtfully consider what I say. Others will be a little dismissive of what I say and talk about how harmless it is. So I always find a mixed bag of responses when it comes to celebrating or acknowledging Halloween.

Last year, my husband and I were exhorted not to be one of those “weird Christians” who ignored the holiday and disengaged ourselves from the rest of the world, but rather we should use the holiday to get to know our neighbors, invite them to church, and possibly present them the gospel. We had never considered ourselves to be “weird” for not participating in the holiday, but we also didn’t think that it was the best venue for presenting the gospel to someone.

In the Reformed crowd, I have heard of people hosting a Reformation party instead of a Halloween in honor of Martin Luther posting his 95 Theses against the practice of indulgences in the Catholic Church. People are asked to dress up as famous reformers (or just wear regular costumes), and they have a party under this reformed banner. In addition, it was at our church home in Louisiana that I first learned about All Hallows Eve (or All Saints Eve and Day) being recognized among Reformed Christians. To my recollection, we didn’t do anything on November 1st, but the day was mentioned.

So, I have heard of many perspectives by now for participation and for transforming the holiday into something that is more God-honoring through the recognition of Church history, but I’m hoping to hear some more thoughtful reasons for participating or against participating in Halloween.

So I wanted to pose a few questions for all of you: What is your stance on Halloween? How did you arrive at that position? Or do you celebrate Reformation history this time of year?