The Blog of Hobbes

What role does Scripture play in determining what is to be believed and what is to be done?

Do we see Scripture as defining what is legitimate doctrine and practice and, by implication, determining what is illegitimate? Or do we see it as the starting point of a voyage of doctrinal discovery and exploration, which regards any destination as legitimate so long as we can trace our journey back to the bible?

The fact that we employ Scripture in our decision making is not necessarily a good sign. How we employ Scripture is far more significant.

Machen, speaking about choosing a pastor:

Such and such a man, it is said, is a brilliant preacher. But what is the content of his preaching? Is his preaching full of the gospel of Christ? The answer is often evasive. The preacher in question, it is said, is of good standing in the Church, and he has never denied the doctrines of grace. Therefore, it is urged, he should be called to the pastorate. But shall we be satisfied with such negative assurances? Shall we be satisfied with the preachers who merely “do not deny” the Cross of Christ? God grant that such satisfaction may be broken down! The people are perishing under the ministrations of those who “do not deny” the Cross of Christ. Surely something more than that is needed. God send us ministers who, instead of merely avoiding denial of the Cross shall be on fire with the Cross, whose whole life shall be one burning sacrifice of gratitude to the blessed Saviour who loved them and gave Himself for them!

J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism (Eerdmans, 1923), p176.

One of the lessons I have learned while seeking a new church is the importance of examining the theological foundations that underlie its life and practice. Towards this end, it is essential that we consider the “statement of faith” that should contain explicit statements either affirming or denying certain theological propositions, and which all members should affirm and protect.

Without a commitment to such a statement, the church will be exposed to all sorts of theological nonsense, and will have no basis for disciplining those who hold to false and heretical beliefs. And, as Machen says, merely “not denying” a key doctrine provides no assurance that that truth plays any role in the life and practice of the church. Therefore, such assurances are worthless.

I would be very concerned if I were forced to guess or infer the theological foundations of a particular church due to a lack of doctrinal clarity and commitment.

…a large part of the New Testament is polemic; the enunciation of evangelical truth was occasioned by the errors which had arisen in the churches. So it will always be, on account of the fundamental laws of the human mind… There may have been a day when there could be propagation of Christianity without defence. But such a day at any rate is passed… In such times of crisis, God has always saved the Church. But He has always saved it not by theological pacifists, but by sturdy contenders for the truth.

J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism (Eerdmans, 1923), p174.

Machen’s book is good stuff. He tends to ramble on a particular topic a bit too much, saying the same things in many different ways. But, using variations of the same argument, he is able to reinforce his points in a way that a more concise argument could not. To drive a nail into a doctrinal coffin sometimes requires a few bangs of the theological hammer, I guess.

The apostle Paul describes two categories of people who should be anathema, or “eternally accursed”, as the NIV puts it. One category we all know about: those people who preach “a different gospel” (Gal. 1:6-9) should be anathema or accursed. But, most people do not realise that there is another category. In 1 Corinthians 16:22, Paul writes:

If anyone has no love for the Lord, let him be accursed [anathema] (1 Cor. 16:22, ESV)

Bad doctrine that obscures the true gospel, and a lack of love for the Lord, are both as bad as each other. A love for the Lord, with an abandonment of the biblical gospel, means nothing. Yet, so many regard a love for Jesus as a sufficient “bottom-line” for being a Christian. It is not. A love for the Lord is only of value if the ‘Lord’ is the person described by biblical revelation, and whose works are described by biblical revelation.

On the other hand, there are those who think a mental, vigorous assent to accurate biblical doctrine is sufficient to be a Christian. It is not. If anyone (including those with accurate Scriptural understanding and assent) has no love for the Lord, let him be anathema.

True biblical christianity requires a love for the Lord and a sound understanding of the gospel. God help me if I do not have either of these, and God keep me from thinking that possessing one in abundance makes up for the lack of the other.