Skip to main content

Tradition Preserves Orthodoxy

As I've grown older I've come to see that not all of the fruit of the Reformation is positive. The emphasis on sola scriptura, particularly has had serious effects. In 1994 Wayne Grudem published his systematic theology text book. It has been a standard text used in Bible colleges and seminaries across the US for decades. In this text he promotes a doctrine of the Trinity that is essentially Arian. Why did this not become a big deal until 2016? How could heresy have been taught in countless Bible colleges, seminaries, and churches with almost no one noticing? You can find isolated cases of push back earlier (like my teacher, Graham Cole back in 2010 - note while Evangelical he is also an Anglican) but no widespread outcry came until last year! It's easy to see how this can happen in the Evangelical movement because the sola scriptura principle has developed in such a way that the tradition has been ignored almost across the board. Over the past few years I've read a lot on the Trinity in Augustine, the Lombard, Aquinas, and others. After reading them and then going back and reading Grudem, the unorthodoxy of his views are obvious!

The whole situation is very ironic because Evangelicals see themselves as the bastion of orthodoxy in opposition to both the Catholic church and liberal Protestant denominations. But, on arguably the most central doctrine, it's the Evangelical movement that has a lot of unorthodox pastors and teachers, and they didn't even know it! More respect for the tradition (i.e., a more Catholic approach) would have stopped this much, much sooner.

Anyone who has read my blog knows that I take Scripture seriously, and that I really want to take it on its own terms and hear God speak through it. Certainly there is time for overthrowing tradition, and even a doctrine like the Trinity may legitimately need to be rethought. However, most times are not that time and the great tradition of the church can serve as guard rails to help us think rightly about God. We're not the first smart Christians in the history of the church, nor are we the first godly ones. Let's use our great heritage to our advantage! If nothing else we will know when we're deviating from what we has been handed down through the centuries and do so cautiously. I write this hoping that my Evangelical sisters and brothers can learn from this and get to know the richness and depth of the tradition of the church.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

More Calvinist than Calvin?

I'm working on a paper on the topic of divine sovereignty and human freedom. Occasionally on this topic (or the subtopic of election) you will hear people through out the barb at strong Calvinists that they're 'being more Calvinist than Calvin.' After having read Calvin carefully on the issue I don't think that there's any validity to that charge. I don't see a material difference here between Calvin and say John Piper. Here are several quotes from the Institutes to prove my point. 'All events are governed by God's secret plan.' I.xvi.2 'Governing heaven and earth by his providence, he also so regulates all things that nothing takes place without his deliberation.' I.xvi.3 'Nothing happens except what is knowingly and willingly decreed by him.' I.xvi.3 Calvin explicitly rejects a limited providence, 'one that by a general motion revolves and drives the system of the universe, with its several parts, but which does not specifc

Galatians 2:11-14: The circumcision group

11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. 14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? (TNIV) There's an important issue that we need to wrestle with in this passage, and it's the question of whether or not the people from James and the circumcision group are the same group. I am not inclined to think that they are. The ensuing discussion is drawn from Longenecker's commentary pp 73-5

Dating Galatians and Harmonization with Acts

We've gotten to the point where how we date Galatians and where we fit it into the narrative of Acts will affect our interpretation in a significant manner. The first question that we have to address is, which visit to Jerusalem is Paul recounting in Galatians 2:1-10 ? Is it the famine relief visit of Acts 11:27-30 or the Jerusalem council of Acts 15 ? First, I think it's worthwhile to point out that it's not all that obvious. Scholars are divided on this issue (even Evangelical scholars). In favor of the theory of Galatians 2:1-10 referring to the Acts 11 visit are the following: This visit clearly is prompted by a revelation by the Holy Spirit. The Acts 15 gathering seems to be a public gathering, where the one described in Galatians is private. Paul never alludes to a letter sent to the diaspora churches which could have definitively won the case for him. The issue of food laws was already decided by James. Why would men coming from him in Galatians 2:11-14 be advocat