Creeds, Confessions, Traditions and the Kingdom of God: Part III

I am in the middle of a mini-series on why I think the Kingdom of God is not something that can be said to be here, but only something to anticipate. I have made six arguments, a "so what" post, and a number of quotation posts. Two nights ago I wrote a state of the union explaining my curiosity at finding Premillennialism suspiciously absent from the creeds and consensuses of the major branches of Christendom. Then, last night, I wrote a followup to it. Tonight I have something small to add to these two state of the union posts.

I was thinking that it could seem ironic that I accept Tradition's canon, then turn right around and use that canon to disagree with Tradition.

So I did some introspecting and I thought I would share with you why I think doing this is ok.

I don't accept the canonicity of books of the Bible because Tradition does. In other words, I don't view the authority of the Bible as being in any way derived from Tradition. Rather, I see Tradition as recognizing the divine inspiration of the scriptures. And I don't take their word for it. I am moved by their arguments.

And so since, as I mentioned in the previous post on this matter as well as in another older post on this blog, one has no choice but to think for oneself, rather than think about which Tradition is the right one to adopt as a religious authority, I will think about which Tradition is right.

Further, it is not clear that Jesus or the apostles meant for there to ever be a religious authority (at least not in the Roman or Eastern sense). And how would we adjudicate between competing authorities? The only way is to try and see which has accurate theology. But if we are able to determine theological matters on our own, what would we need a religious authority for?

Therefore I will respect tradition highly and count it as useful and trust that in some sense the Spirit is guiding it, but I will not elevate it so highly that I won't be bold enough to break from it where I think it's beliefs are unwarranted scripturally or philosophically (and this is only relevant to my view of the Kingdom of God if it is true that candidate religious authorities indeed teach contrarily to my Premillennialism, and I have already stated that I am not convinced Premillennialism is at least not incompatible with the earliest and most popular creeds).

Creeds, Confessions, Traditions and the Kingdom of God: Part II

I am in the middle of a mini-series on why I think the Kingdom of God is not something that can be said to be here, but only something to anticipate. I have made six arguments, a "so what" post, and a number of quotation posts. Last night I wrote a state of the union explaining my curiosity at finding Premillennialism suspiciously absent from the creeds and consensuses of the major branches of Christendom. Tonight I post a followup to that. Specifically, I have a two-pronged answer to why I think Premillennialism can't really be found in any of the creeds.

The other day Jon and I were talking and he was explaining to me a revelation he had had. As he's been dealing with government offices and policies and businesses and the business world he realized something like that we are all just people and this is a big mess.

As I have been studying (admittedly only a bit - I am no scholar), I have been realizing that historical Christianity is full of just a bunch of people and is a big mess. Now don't get me wrong - I think the Holy Spirit has moved in that mess and I think the History Books tell us stories of "just people" being used by God for His purposes. I think the Hero is always God and it is always Him despite humanity, and that's part of the whole point.

At any rate, my current thinking on the councils (those called "ecumenical" by various groups and otherwise) is pretty broadly stroked and fuzzy, but comprises two elements.

First, their creeds and canons were not divinely inspired like the scriptures were (and I think they would agree).
Second, they were conducted by humans (and I think they would agree with this too).

The second belief I list above in light of the first lowers my view of the veracity of the creeds. It is not clear which councils ought to be considered "ecumenical", much less what ecumenicity is exactly and exactly how it is relevant. Each council has its own set of controversies, dissenters, and amendments (some are even amended [contradicted?] by later councils that are also recognized as authoritative by certain groups recognizing the previous as authoritative).

If one wants to believe in the authority of church history, one has to pick a historical side on a ton of issues in succession, or work really hard at principally defining the scope of those to be considered authoritative while sifting through their disagreements to find the lowest common theological denominator (and is this even the right approach?).

Theology by democracy seems tricky when it isn't clear whose votes to count.

Further, how ought this picking, defining, and sifting be done? According to what criteria? At some point one has to think for oneself. This must be done to come up with the right criteria by which to pick, define, and sift, or one has to think about which authority's picks, definitions, and sifts to adopt.

But isn't thinking for oneself (in some qualified sense anyway) incompatible by the belief in religious authority?

Not to mention the fact that it is not clear how Jesus' promise, that the Holy Spirit will guide us, has or will occur exactly (viz. it is not clear that the councils were the direct and exclusive outworking of this promise, or that the majority of those who administered or attended them thought so).

As of tonight, I am not convinced that any creeds or authorities outside of the scriptures ought to be seen as inerrant. It seems like they are about extremely useful.

So on to my second prong. It seems like, while Premillennialism isn't explicitly taught by any of the major creeds, neither is any other eschatological system. It appears that they just weren't addressing Last Things yet. They were still worrying about basic things like, you know, condemning major Christological and Trinitarian heresies.

Either that, or they believed that there was room for eschatological disagreement within orthodoxy.

There is much to be studied on all of these matters. Still I maintain that the works that we have all agreed are canonical, teach Premillennialism, and I find it significant that most of the earliest and most respected church fathers, especially those said to have had direct ties to John himself, were evangelistically Premillennial. I hold these conclusions with an open mind.

Can a man be faulted for honestly struggling to understand these things?

"For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus," (1 Timothy 2:5)

"But you are not like that, for you are a chosen people. You are royal priests, a holy nation, God’s very own possession. As a result, you can show others the goodness of God, for he called you out of the darkness into his wonderful light." (1 Peter 2:9, NLT)

Creeds, Confessions, Traditions and the Kingdom of God: Part I

I am in the middle of a mini-series (when does a mini-series become a series? Sorry for posting so much lately!) on why I think the Kingdom is not quite here yet. I have posted seven major entires, and included some intermittent quotations. I have plans for a number of additional entries, but tonight I want to take a break and give you sort of a state of the union.

In my extra-Biblical research I have found a wide number of very early Christian leaders and thinkers, especially those who are said to have been disciples of John himself or of one of his disciples, who are Premillennial (most notably Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Terullian, Papias, and Polycarp - and arguably Clement, Barnabas, Hermas, and others). However, I have noticed that explicit Premillenialism is not taught in any of the Ecumenical creeds, nor really in any of the proceeding major creeds or confessions. Further, the Orthodox, Catholic, and Reformed traditions are all more or less Post- or Amillenial.

The only really major traditions I can find that are Premillennial are HIstoric Premillennialism (which includes a number throughout history, and a healthy number of the Reformers, such as Spurgeon), and pretty much all of the various modern Dispensationals (Classic and Progressive and whatever other flavors there may be). I think Premillennialism might still be the minority view if you tally up every Christian's vote for all time.

What do I make of this? I am not sure. I still think, and am willing to defend my position that, the Biblical authors intended to convey a Premillennial eschatology, and I also have the witnesses of a very large number of very early church fathers, and then the couple traditions I mentioned above.

But no creeds, confessions, or major branches of the church? Could I have missed something in the Biblical text? How high of a view do I have of the creeds?

I am thinking it through. I found this Preterist who makes an interesting case against hyper-creedalism. While I might disagree with his eschatological system, I think I might be willing to adopt his view on the creeds. It's still very high, but maintains that they are not to be considered scriptural and so may contain non-damnable errors. Thus when intra-mural theological disputes arise, we are permitted to break with the theology of the creeds if we have a scriptural basis for it.

Augustine, who is famously Amillennial, was Premillennial for a long time before becoming so and maintains that there is room within Orthodoxy for Premillennialism. He cautions Premillennials to not become too materialistic though, making sure we agree that that the goodness of the Kingdom is that we will be fully relationally restored with God, and not that we will inherit a nice shiny world to do with whatever we want.

It seems like he and a number of others maintain that Premillennialism is at least compatible with the creeds. He's a Compatibalist in that way I guess (ha, ha).

In addition to exploring this, today I took a bit of time to read some from Justin Martyr's Dialogue With Trypho, which is amazingly clear and Biblical and ancient and, as previously noted, Premillennial. It is highly recommended.

Stay tuned.

"Think & argue about it, but at the end of the day come to the conclusion that God is sovereign and man is responsible." - T. S. (paraphrased)

After reading, talking, thinking, and praying for a very long time and to a level of sophistication that very probably nears my max out, whatever that may be, I have come to a number of core convictions most highly relevant to matters related to the doctrines of divine omnipotence and the responsibility of humankind:

1. God can do anything
2. God is morally good
3. God knows everything
4. Man is responsible
5. Logic is true

You are welcome to speculate concerning the details.

You are not welcome to elevate your philosophical speculations even remotely close to the levels of certainty and importance that the gospel enjoys.

4 Observations of the Church in Acts

Acts 6:1-3 reads

Now in these days when the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint by the Hellenists arose against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution. And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables.  Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty.

I notice 4 things about this passage.

1. The most obvious is the Apostolic recognition of the principle that preaching God's word is a non-negotiable for those to whom such a duty is entrusted.

2. The next is that serving, especially the needy, is also a must.

3. The third is that division of labor regarding these matters was embraced.

4. But the fourth thing I notice about this is change. This early local church was doing things one way, and when something came to their attention, they changed, and began doing things a new way, according to the principles that they all agreed upon. What got them to where they were wasn't sufficient to move them forward.

QUESTION: Which of these four observations is to be emulated, if not all? Why?