The Sufficiency of Scripture
 
Apparently, some people are still bothered by what I said in this post.  The criticism is focused on this sentence:
 
  1. To the consternation of strict confessional Presbyterians, Waters included, the reason so much of this is resonating with people is because the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century confessions and catechisms are no longer sufficient guides for the modern church.
To be specific, my assertion that these old symbols “are no longer sufficient guides for the modern church” seems to be problem.  Some cannot stomach this.  Doesn’t this contradict my ordination vow?  How can you subscribe to the Westminster Standards and make such a statement?  Perhaps some clarification is in order.
 
Yes, I've officially subscribed to the "system of doctrine taught" in the Standards.  And I continue to affirm that vow.  Here’s the precise wording of the first two PCA ordination vows:
 
  1. 1.  Do you believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as originally given, to be the inerrant Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice?
  2.  
  3. 2.  Do you sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith and the Catechisms of this Church, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures; and do you further promise that if at any time you find yourself out of accord with any of the fundamentals of this system of will you on your own initiative, make known to your Presbytery the change which has taken place in your views since the assumption of this ordination vow?
 
So I'm "in accord with Westminster" if you are talking about Reformed theology, which is what I take "the fundamentals of this system of doctrine" to mean.  According to my presbytery, my exceptions do not strike at the vitals of the system.
 
Vow #1 means that I confess that the Scriptures are the “only infallible rule of faith and practice.”  The Westminster standards are human, fallible, time- and culture-bound applications of the Word of God to questions and controversies that needed to be addressed in the 16th- and 17th-century church.  Westminster is useful and possibly the best we have right now, although other Reformed men might argue that the Heidelberg Catechism and the other Dutch confessional documents are on par.
 
There is nothing in my ordination vows that requires me to confess the sufficiency of the Westminster standards for the church of the 21st century.  Indeed, I would insist that the first chapter of the Westminster Confession clearly marks out the sufficient guide for the church in all ages.  And it is not some isolated, local 17th-century tradition.  It’s the Holy Spirit speaking through the Scriptures.
 
  1. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture (WCF 1.10).
How often do we find confessing Presbyterian and Reformed ministers these days slamming the door on a discussion of biblical texts with a reference to Westminster’s formulations?  Too often.  We often outdo Rome in the veneration of our own tradition.
 
I do not believe that I am required to believe and confess all the details in the confessions and catechism.  Nor am I bound to their form.  The chapter on the covenant, for example, is filled with problems.   So much progress has been made in the last century on the biblical theology of the covenants.  There are still things to be learned from the Bible, which necessitates updating and correcting our theological formulations.
 
The form of the Shorter and Larger Catechisms (definitions, definitions, definitions, ad nauseam) has led to much of the warfare that seems to be endemic to Presbyterianism and is pedagogically questionable for little children.  I know that statement is controversial, but as good as one might think the Catechisms are, they are cultural artifacts of 17th-century scholasticism.  They may be helpful, but their form is extra-biblical.
 
Add to that the fact that the definitions are scholastic theological abstractions that may often interfere with reading and understanding the Bible.  Prophet, priest, and king are perfect examples of his severe problem.  The definitions we are given in our Standards are not erroneous, but they don't get at the heart of the functions of these “offices” in the Bible.
 
Moreover, this scholastic literature is alien to modern people, alien and not always particularly helpful either.  Nobody talks like this or thinks like this today.  I'm not sure that anyone really did in the 17th century.  Any pastor who has tried to introduce new converts to this literature knows this is true.
 
When I was in seminary these kinds of statements were not really all that controversial.  Something has happened.  The Reformed world seems to be hardening and turning in on itself.  It used to be that the adjective “Reformed” was shorthand for “Reformed According to the Word.”  Now, it seems that for some it means you are locked into the 17th-century way of doing theology and church.  We seem to have forgotten the semper reformanda call.
 
Don’t get me wrong.  I love historical theology.  I also firmly believe that ministers ought to be well-grounded in the creeds, confessions, and the catholic tradition of the church.  It will save many from silly, even soul-destroying theological errors.  But I fear that many Reformed men escape into the past.  There’s a glut of Ph.D’s in historical theology and Reformation history in our circles.  We love the Puritans more than we love our own generation, and it often seems more than we love digging into the Bible for fresh, relevant answers to modern problems.
 
I long for the day when people stop venerating these iconic documents and start using them as they use other historical theological sources.  This would be true to our heritage as “Reformed” churches.
 
If we want to be an enclave of ecclesiastical romantics living in the 17th century, a tribe of irrelevant theologues, then by all means let’s continue to multiply conferences and books on the glory of Westminster.  Let’s continue to demand subscription to every jot and tittle of our precious unreformable tradition.  Let’s attack anyone who suggests updates and changes.  If, however, we desire to minister to people in our world, we need to stand on the shoulders of our glorious forefathers in the faith and do what they did—preach, write, and formulate answers from the Bible for the people of our generation!  
 
Now, let the traditionalists hammer away at me in their own discussion lists and blogs.  I trust most readers will understand and agree with what I have said here.  I believe in sola scriptura.
Sola Scriptura?
Monday, July 17, 2006