by Matthew Arkapaw
1. With regard to Baptists being theologically liberal:
How can a Baptist be someone who holds that the word of God is sufficient, supreme, and always true, and at the same time be someone who doesn’t? Holding that the Scriptures are not those things is the unembarrassed definition and essence of theological liberalism, which has reason trumping Scripture when they clash. So, unless we are happy to say that an evangelical position on Scripture is not an essential distinctive of being Baptist, I can’t see how a Baptist can be a theological liberal and be true to the name. It seems to me as illogical as saying that a Baptist may certainly be Erastian in their ecclesiology or paedobaptistic in regard to baptism.
I think you can say ‘No’ to the idea that heterodoxy is OK for a Baptist (or Christian) without necessarily “enforcing that position through church instruments”, thought police, or some kind of Baptist Magisterium running its inquisitions. Having said that, it suddenly occurs to me that the Scriptures, and Jesus their author, may actually insist that, in some sense, and at the local church level, we are forced to do just that at times (Matthew 18: 15-19; 1 Corinthians 5; 1 Timothy 1: 3-7).
2.With regard to Sola Scriptura:
i. We should remember that the issue is authority for “matters of faith and conduct” and the question of where the church is to look for its authority, rather than pagan citizenry more generally.
ii. “Where does it leave road rules?” Why do we obey road rules? I would suggest that we do so because of the authority of Scripture – which teaches us to submit to governing authorities, and so on.
iii. “professional codes of ethics” My response would be similar to my point above. I’d suggest that what Christians actually do is observe these codes to the extent that they adhere to Christian values, and not because of any authority inherent in such a code itself. And even if it were the latter, then, like the road rules, the Scripture itself has teaching on the need to respect those in authority, slaves and masters, that type of stuff. Lastly, if a code of ethics conflicted with the Bible, a Christian would not obey it. Which goes to show that it’s the Scripture that actually bears authority. It is, in effect, the sole authority, not the supreme, because other sources of ‘authority’ are only obeyed in so far as they agree with the Scripture.
iv. “moral matters not dealt with in Scripture.” Not sure what examples would be given here, but for the sake of argument, these situations would leave us without obligation, and in the realm of Christian freedom (which in itself is a situation the Scriptures will guide us on – Romans 14, 1 Corinthians 10, meat offered to idols and all that). A moral matter not dealt with in Scripture leaves us without obligation because only God can obligate us in a truly authoritative sense. If the opinion of a philosopher or ethicist cannot bind the conscience of a Christian (and nothing can bind the conscience of a Christian except the Scripture) then such an opinion is not actually authoritative. We could call it, ‘recommendational’ if recommendational wasn’t a made up word.
All of my above points would, I think, be in line with the meaning of Sola Scriptura as the Reformers understood it.
Reason, experience and tradition all inform us, but they bear no authority in any real sense of that term – except to the extent that they agree with Scripture – which is really just the same as saying they have no authority as such, only Scripture does. Let me ask a question. Do you feel morally obliged to obey the dictates of your reason, or your experience, or your traditions? I don’t. These things have influence (which we are free to accept or reject depending on a variety of factors) but they have no authority – no obligating power vis-à-vis my godliness.
So, I’d suggest that the notion of the Bible as the ‘sole’ authority is not only tenable, but essential, and that sola scriptura is what, at root, separates Biblical Christianity from Roman Catholicism (Scripture plus Tradition), Liberalism (Scripture plus Reason) and mysticism of all kinds (Scripture plus experience). Again, that’s not to say we are not influenced by other people and ideas (or obliged to obey them when the Scripture says we should – for example parents and church leaders giving godly instruction), but it is to say that there is such a categorical gulf between the normative authority of Scripture and any other so called ‘authority’ that calling any other ‘authority’ an authority is really a misnomer. If you were a glutton for punishment and really wanted to know where I was coming from on the subject of Sola Scriptura and the sufficiency of Scripture I’d recommend Lloyd-Jones ‘What is an Evangelical’ pages 69-74 where he takes up this precise issue, and more broadly, R.L. Reymond’s ‘A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith’ pages 83-87.
3.On the question of Pentecostalism and Baptist identity:
Not sure that “groups with contradictory allegiances” is something worth celebrating anymore than a person with multiple personality disorder would jump for joy at their condition. With regard to distinctive yet nonetheless overlapping allegiances I think you’re right. The question is, what allegiances are genuinely overlapping, and what allegiances are at odds? In the case of Pentecostalism I reckon a case can be made that it is a genuinely new and separate group in the history of Christendom – as separate as Catholicism is from Protestantism, and Protestantism from Russian Orthodoxy, etc etc. But that’s a whopper of a topic.
4. On the question of non-evangelical Baptists:
"many evangelicals who are not Baptists" agreed. "Some Baptists who are not evangelicals." Disagreed. Certainly a person could be a Baptist in name and membership and not be an evangelical, but I’m wondering about the deeper question of fidelity to our cluster of convictions that designate us as Baptist. Really, how could a NSW Baptist, for example, not be evangelical if they subscribe to our statement of faith? If they do not subscribe to it, are they not something else in ‘Baptist disguise’?! As an aside, I tend to think that anyone afraid of ‘thought police’ in any context ought to have the courage of their convictions and nail their colours to the mast. Do not those who hide their beliefs because of what others will say or do make a virtue of concealment, or worse, love a stipend more than being honest with themselves and others? Hmmmm.
Nice duelling with you Rod (or should that be dialogue-ing?)
Matthew Arkapaw is a pastor at Mortdale-Oatley Baptist Church.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Hi Matthew,
Your response to my response to your earlier thoughts misconstrues the point of my examples, and argues points that appear incidental or irrelevant to the original discussion. Are you hoping to identify Baptists who do not share your particular views? Is this what Taskforce 2 is about? Is this what Baptist identity, partnership and cooperation means? Or would such concerns be more effectively celebrated in a separatist forum such as the old Conservative Baptist Ministers Fraternal?
To take just two of your points: First, you claim that “heterodoxy” is inappropriate for a Baptist, and for a Christian, and imply that both Scripture and Christ “insist” that we are “forced” to impose a particular doctrinal standard on the group. But whose interpretation of Scripture is judged to be authoritative, and on what grounds? Who should define Baptist orthodoxy and heterodoxy (in doctrines and practices) in a given place and time? How should dissenters be managed?
Second, you state that “anyone afraid of ‘thought police’ in any context ought to have the courage of their convictions and nail their colours to the mast. Do not those who hide their beliefs because of what others will say or do make a virtue of concealment, or worse, love a stipend more than being honest with themselves and others? Hmmmm.”
My point was that inappropriate use can be made of power, resulting in slander, persecution or worse. I think that the line you have taken, as quoted above, is reprehensible and serves to illustrate my point rather than detract from it.
Perhaps vital opportunities are missed when we choose to mimic the culture of other denominations, or are forced to adhere to the prescriptions of a well organised interest group, rather than having the freedom to explore an authentic Baptist expression of being the church.
Rod
Some argue that they should have the right to read Scripture in any manner they wish without fear of any recrimination from other Baptist churches. In other words, they are arguing that their private interpretation of Scripture is an inherent right that trumps any sense of inter-church accountability, over Baptist Union Statements of Faith and Statements of Principle (The Bases of our association as Baptists in the Baptist Union of NSW & ACT).
Since there is nothing new under the sun, it should surprise no one that the arguments used by progressive Baptists are not novel. Around the turn of the nineteenth century, there were Christians in England that similarly argued for the right of unfettered private interpretation. Andrew Fuller offered some thoughts on these moral and theological libertarians, and his words are just as relevant 200 years later. Please note I have retained the original spelling.
The right of private judgment in matters of religion appears to be THE RIGHT WHICH EVERY INDIVIDUAL HAS TO THINK AND TO AVOW HIS THOUGHTS ON THOSE SUBJECTS, WITHOUT BEING LIABLE TO ANY CIVIL INCONVENIENCE ON THAT ACCOUNT....But of late the subject has taken another turn, and men have pleaded not only an exemption from civil penalties on account of their religious principles, in which the very essence of persecution consists, but also that they are not subject to the control of a religious society with which they stand connected for any tenets which they may think proper to avow. The right of private judgment now frequently assumed, is a right in every individual who may become a member of a Christian church to think and avow his thoughts, be they what they may, without being subject to exclusion of admonition, or the ill opinion of his brethren, on that account. Any thing that is consistent with this is thought to be consistent to spiritual tyranny, and repugnant to that "liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free." But this appears to be highly extravagant, and is what no man can claim as a right. The following considerations are submitted to the reader.
First, The supposed right of the individual is contrary to the principles on which Christian churches were originally founded....Hence it appears that admonishing or excluding from the primitive church those who held pernicious errors was not reckoned to be subversive of the right of private judgment; and the churches being exhorted to such discipline by the apostles was exercising no dominion over their faith.
Secondly, Not only is this supposed right of private judgment inconsistent with apostolic practice, but it is also contrary to reason and the fitness of all things....A community must entirely renounce the name of a Christian church before it can act upon the principle here contended for; and those who entirely reject Christianity ought, nevertheless, to be admitted or retained in fellowship, if they choose it; seeing they have only exercised the right of private judgment!
To say that no person is better or worse in a moral view, whatever be his principles, is to say that principles themselves have no influence on the heart and life; and that amounts to the same thing as their being of no importance. But if so, all those scriptures which represent truth as a means of sanctification ought to be discarded; and all the labours of good men to discover truth, and of the apostles to disseminate it--yea, and those of the Son of God himself, who came into the world to bear witness to the truth--were totally in vain.
[From "An Inquiry into the Right of Private Judgment in Matters of Religion," in The Complete Works of Andrew Fuller, vol. III, pp. 447-49.]
Clearly there is a sense in which the accepted views of a group (i.e. a statement fo beleif) become mandatory and binding upon the conscience's of those associating with that partcular corporation. And those not wishing to contain themselves to the stated beliefs of that association should in good conscience bow out from that association and form their own association. There is room for many associations.
Sadly in our non-confrontational society it is often those wishing to retain doctrinal distinctives that are perceived to be divisive, rather than those who, often through lobbying or worse, attempt to change the beliefs of the association.
Steve
Fuller on Private Judgement
It seems to me that Fuller recognised the same problem as Matt articulated, and Steve's posting of Fuller's comments confirms the comment I made about a shift of understanding about 'liberty' among some Baptists and when it occurred. Thanks Steve.
Post a Comment