Holy Joys Podcast
A discussion of theology and ministry practice, all for a holy, happy church. A ministry of holyjoys.org.
Holy Joys Podcast
The Rule of Faith: Creeds, Scripture, and Tradition
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
Philip Brown joins David Fry and Johnathan Arnold to discuss the rule of faith. The episode begins with a short current events segment on Rush Limbaugh and his impact on evangelical Christians.
Yeah, certainly a um uh a voice that shaped media even to this day. And uh again, for better or worse, depending on whether a person uh agreed with his uh political and social stances or not.
SPEAKER_02And the the rule of faith then uh says uh well here's the boundaries within which you you listen, and you'll find that scripture fits these boundaries. The boundaries were created by the scriptures, and these guide then your application and formulation.
SPEAKER_00You're listening to the Holy Joys Podcast, co-hosted by Jonathan Arnold and Dr. David Fry. Visit us at holyjoys.org and stay tuned for weekly discussions of theology and ministry practice, all for a holy, happy church.
SPEAKER_01All right, so we're sitting down here with Dr. Philip Brown today, and we want to talk about the rule of faith, but there's been a lot going on in our world, certainly. Uh seems like there's always a lot going on in our world here in the last few months, last year or two. It's been uh uh just a hectic time. And uh, one of the things that has uh created some waves in not only conservative circles, but uh even in Christian circles has been the death of Rush Limbaugh. And we thought maybe we were talking a little bit about this here before we started. Uh a couple open up with just a short segment here talking a little bit about uh his impact. Uh Dr. Fry it, something you've thought about. Do you have any thoughts on uh on his life and impact?
SPEAKER_03Yeah, first I have a question for you. What year were you born, John? 1995. 1995. All right. So it was, I think, 1992. I don't remember when the first world uh uh Gulf War started, wasn't that 92? 91. 91, okay. Uh I remember as a high schooler or uh nearly high school, I guess, um coming home from school at 2:30. And here Rush Limbaugh would be on from noon to mom always listening, she always had the radio on. It didn't matter who was on the radio, it it was on. But I remember when we get home, that last half hour, we get home and she would turn it off. And I learned later she would turn it off because of some of his use of language, uh, some of his his language uh she didn't want us to hear. Um, I did hear it later in life, but uh that was my first impression of Rush Limbaugh, that he's on the radio, and whatever he's saying, my mom doesn't want me to hear it. And and uh and so that was you know, for better or worse. Uh but there's no denial uh that uh his life has had a a deep impact on our culture. So Phil Brown uh is with us. Um let's just take a minute here, casually reflect on uh the passing of Rush Limbaugh. Um, what are your recollections uh going back to those years?
SPEAKER_02So number one, I understand that he gave his life to Christ and was quite vocal about that at the end. And uh that will be of the most importance to him on the other side of his life, and I was delighted to hear that. Secondly, kind of some bullet points that come to mind when I think of Rush. Uh, number one, his popularity was a function of people's perception that he was willing to speak the truth without fear or favor, and uh we desperately long for people who will tell us the truth because truth provides freedom. Um his truth speaking was at times, I think, unfortunately paired with an acerbic tone and perhaps even a disrespectful tone to authority, and uh it's it's a short step from I arguing that uh a piece of uh rhetoric or legislation is illogical to the creators of it are stupid, and then that they are to be mocked and derided. And I uh often found that people who were ditto heads, as they were called, were more likely to pick on the up on the uh acerbic tone and the disrespect toward political leadership than they were to be able to uh reiterate the essential points that he was making. Uh it's it's a lot easier to mimic tone than it is to remember data. And so you know, I I was distressed when it seemed like the biblical call to respect leaders, even when they are blatantly ungodly, like the high priest who has Paul slapped, and then Paul acknowledges that you we're not to speak evil of our rulers. Uh Romans chapter 13 didn't seem to be a very widespread framework for the Christians that I was around to think about uh the relation to government. So great truth speaker, I was uh you know, his tone, and then so of course his language. And then I think um one of the things I think Rush did well, that some of his followers didn't do so well, is he often provided people concrete guidance on what to do next. Call your senator at this number and tell him X. Whereas many times the editorials I read from conservatives uh seem entirely deconstructive or dismissive. And I wanted don't just tell me what's wrong with it, tell me uh what I need to do and give me talking points that uh are factually based and so on. So that was something he seemed to do well.
SPEAKER_03Yeah, I think he certainly was in part a product of the shape of media in the 80s. I think he came on the radio in 88, if I recall. Uh I don't think I heard him until I guess it would be 91. And um and I and so I think that the media culture was was rapidly shifting to where these alternative voices, alternative media was really on the rise. And I don't know where the phrase comes from, actually. I I don't know the history of it, but I know uh outrage culture is a term that has been attached to some of the movement alternative movements in the late 80s and and 90s. Uh, I don't know if that's a term that's still used today or not, but has been used by uh historians for that era. And I certainly understand that. You mentioned some of the the tone and some of the language and and some of the um uh uh some of the sometimes shocking way of referring to uh leaders, you know, the uh having names for uh leaders that were uh you know taken as humorous by by fans and listeners, and of course, uh not so much by uh opponents. But um so I think one of the important contributions would be that um would be the alternative media. Uh that there uh he he created a platform, there was another platform there for people to hear a different perspective than what they were getting uh elsewhere. And of course now that's just you know exploded uh today with with internet and and podcasts and those sorts of things. But yeah, certainly a um uh a voice that shaped media even to this day. And uh again, for better or worse, depending on whether a person uh agreed with his uh political and social stances or not. But uh I'm glad to hear that. I didn't I was not a close follower of Rush. Uh did not uh you know keep up with uh you know his his life and and the various struggles that he had. I know he had some physical problems, I know he had you know about with with addiction that I I think he overcame. Uh, but I am glad to hear that because uh at the end of the day, um he was a very gifted person um who used his gifts in very influential ways. And and I trust that um yeah that that uh you know as he as he is you know before his maker, uh that his faith is real and and that's that's what matters most. And and I I think most impressive to me is uh the number of of Christians who uh receive much of their cultural analysis from Rush Limbaugh. Uh I would probably have to say just anecdotally uh that you know most of the conservative Christians that I knew, especially in the late 90s and early 2000s, he was he was one of the first names mentioned. Uh so it's certainly influential. And uh Jonathan, uh do you have uh I don't know what your experience was.
SPEAKER_01Uh if you had any ever turned on Rush Limbaugh or not, but uh no, I don't I don't have any reflections on on Rush exactly, but uh certainly um you talk about outrage culture and how that kind of media um just really fuels outrage culture. I was just on social media for a minute or two here this morning and uh you know saw a post and had all these angry emojis. And I'm just thinking to myself, you know, like what are we doing? We get on social media and we just are angry together. You know, we have this little group of friends and followers, and we just post how angry we are, and then we just affirm one another in our anger. And I think it does fuel it. So I I I'm very concerned about the way, um, yeah, the way uh it just seems like like outrage, anger, tribalism, yeah, it has. It does seem like it has infected the church. And I'm not saying that, you know, somebody like Rush Limbaugh, we couldn't maybe benefit from some of his cultural analysis. But I do worry when we when when we have people listening to that who don't also seem to evidence a mature political theology, uh much understanding about the relationship between church and state. And then there's that danger that we will allow really the world's values for political engagement to shape our own. And that's really a subtle but insidious form of worldliness. Um, and uh that would be probably my biggest concern.
SPEAKER_02Yeah, I'll remember, you know, how do you how do we be slow to anger? Have the sun not go down on our wrath, um remember that the wrath of man does not work the righteousness of God, and yet live angry as people. These are these are spiritually incompatible.
SPEAKER_01Um it's hard, it's hard to not allow the sun to go down on your wrath when the last thing you do before the sun goes down is look at Facebook. And uh something that those stinking Democrats did today. Very true.
SPEAKER_03Very true. Good point, good point. I do recall uh a number of times hearing Rush Limbaugh uh actu actually give defense of Christian involvement in in politics and in the public arena. And uh and so I think he he consciously uh he saw Christians as his allies. He knew that that a large part of his audience would identify as Christians. I think he he recognized that and I think sincerely appealed to that as well. Um again, through those years, I didn't know a lot about his faith. His brother, David Limbaugh, uh had been an outspoken Christian for for years, and um he seemed to uh Rush would occasionally make reference to him, uh to his brother, uh, but was of course not one to speak too much on faith. Uh but there was always kind of a this an underlying you you knew that Rush had a lot of thoughts about Christian faith, but he didn't let that leak in too much, but occasionally uh it would. And um yeah, but I but I always wondered, does he would he call himself a Christian? Would he identify with with Christ in a real personal way? And it sounds like uh at the end of his life that that became uh something that was more personal than than just cultural.
SPEAKER_02You know, Jonathan, you mentioned having a well-formed theology of political engagement, and I I think let's just let me toss a penny toward that well. Um you can't be a follower of Jesus and not care about human flourishing, you can't follow Jesus and not care about the common wealth. And the language of common wealth at the civic level was really sourced theologically and looking out for the well-being of all men. And when we recognize that what we have is competing views about what is good for people, what helps humans flourish, this is not about mere political affiliation or uh simply um left-right kind of good guy, bad guy. This is about what is humanity? So it's it's anthropology, right? And how is its best interest served? And surely Christians of all people ought to be have the most to contribute to be and be thinking about the well-being of everybody. Unfortunately, I often see that Christians are isolationists, they're almost like they're political um uh nuns and monks, you know, thinking that somehow they they serve the world best by not thinking about the commonwealth, thinking only about their personal commonwealth.
SPEAKER_03Yeah, it seems to me that two two attitudes, one of two attitudes prevails upon many Christians today. One is that we can engage politically, but disconnected from our our faith or our theology, that those are two different separated uh realms of interaction. That's that's the one big problem. I think that one's probably the largest. Uh the other is that we can use theology to whatever political end we personally lean toward. And so whether it's whether it's you know war fought because we know God's on our side, or uh, or in all through all of the social political issues. So those two uses or or not, or you know, disregard of theology seems to be that many people just go to one ditch or the other, uh, and and both of them are really dangerous to our faith uh in Christ, uh, because it really is a um mistaken understanding of what how our faith uh should be lived out publicly, and a um misappropriation of our faith, on the other hand, uh for public life.
SPEAKER_02Both on the right and the left.
SPEAKER_03Exactly. Yeah, exactly.
SPEAKER_01I wish, yeah, I wish, you know, it's so important, I think, that we have examples of what you're describing that we can point to. Because my experience has been that as I've tried to raise concerns about some of these issues, there's been like this huge jump, like, well, that sounds like you're a Mennonite or anabaptist. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. I'm concerned by this kind of political engagement that is really just taking up, you know, Caesar's sword to cut off, you know, the ear of the servant, and then it has this thinned veneer of Christianity over it. And I think that would be my concern, like even hearing what you're saying about Rush Limbaugh, like these people who they're kind of like uh cultural Christians, maybe, um, but they're not really their their their commentary isn't really theologically informed.
SPEAKER_03But let me give you one example of the disconnection. So in in the past uh election cycle, uh, one pastor, uh, I mean, it's on recording, so you could find it if you knew who it was, but one pastor said, you know, we need to set aside our faith, let's set aside our Christian faith for a moment as we look at this election. And and and the the point was, you know, vote based on party platform or whatever. I'm I'm not sure exactly what he was leaning toward, but the statement was, you know, hey, let's just set aside our Christian faith for a second and you know, and then vote. And no, everything we do must be done Christianly. We don't set aside Christ for a moment to make any kind of decision. So, you know, I and and really, I you know, I doubt that the pastor meant it, meant it to come out that way, but it did come out that way. And you have to wonder, okay, well, what what would cause something to come out in those words? Uh, because you know, in follow-up discussion, uh, it was like, no, no, no, I didn't mean that, but well, that's what you said, and you know, the people who heard you don't know that you didn't mean that, and so we have to be really careful. And sometimes those things just come out because we've been thinking that way, and when it comes out in words, uh, you know, it's it really reveals what we've been thinking. Very good.
SPEAKER_02Well, there's a lot of room for theological reflection in this arena, uh, but we're gonna not get to the rule of faith.
SPEAKER_01That's what I was just gonna say. We've been talking for about 15 minutes. Yeah, we'll have to have another discussion sometime. So, rule of faith. So, what why do why do we want to talk about this? Um, I think I think maybe um the first thing to do is just define this term because there's a lot of people that may not be familiar with it. And one of the things that we have been doing as holy joys is we've had this church fathers reading group. We've had a very good participation, and you know, we've been reading Irenaeus. We just finished with Tertullian's works, now we're moving on to Origin. And Irenaeus and Tertullian are often lifted up as two of the prime examples of providing us with early forms of the rule of faith. Um so how about uh Dr. Fry, why don't you start us off and give us a short little definition, and then maybe uh maybe Phil, you can share a few things about that you were that you were mentioning earlier about uh just the the way that the rule of faith has been has been understood uh from different generations.
SPEAKER_03Yeah, so you mentioned Irenaeus and Tertullian, and and I always want to say, well, don't forget the apostle Paul. Uh he gave us some formulaic uh short form uh formulas that seem to have already been passed down for some time on how to understand um you know what like 1 Corinthians 15 and elsewhere. Uh so I don't want to want us to overlook that. Uh that the the apostolic fathers inherited a uh these these concise theological statements and they called them rules of faith. So a rule of faith is a sum a summary statement of apostolic teaching. In other words, of the New Testament teaching that's passed on to the early church and uh appears in a confessional form, uh, first of all orally and then uh later written. And a rule of faith as a uh summation of apostolic teaching then serves as a key for interpreting scripture. And so I think those two aspects of a rule of faith, a summation of apostolic teaching that serves as a key for understanding scripture and interpreting it properly, is uh what a rule of faith is.
SPEAKER_02Yeah, so uh that's uh that's my understanding of the Historical use of the term as well. And I want to say that I think when Paul talks about the faith once delivered to the saints, and that he's fought a good fight, he's kept the faith, that he did not merely envision the distilled essence of these creedal formulas, that he had the entirety of all that had been passed down via inspired revelation that's being passed on. And this is why he enjoins Timothy to train faithful men who are able to train others also. And he said to the Ephesian elders that I have not held back from declaring to you the whole counsel of God. So the way I've tended to think about the rule of faith is even though it's a distillation, it serves as a boundary marker between orthodoxy and heterodoxy. And within that very wide boundary, then there's a lot of room for doing the work of understanding scripture, thinking and applying it. So the Apostles' Creed or the Nicene Creed or the Constantine Nepalitan really don't help me articulate a biblical doctrine of sanctification except within a broad frame of a Trinitarian understanding that God, the Father, through the Son, and by the Spirit is at work within both the individual and the body to bring us all into Christ's likeness. But even parts of what I've just said there don't show up much in those creedal affirmations. So that's uh kind of the most distilled way I know to say how uh the rule of faith in its distilled in its uh creedal form as well as in its uh whole revelational form plays a part in my thinking.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, and I I do think there are different understandings of of the rule of faith, not just its function. Um I think what you're saying reminds me of Robert Wall, who defines the rule of faith as the heart of the Christian faith that constitutes the theological boundary markers of Christianity. At least that would be one of the part of the of the definition that you would give. I think that's helpful. And you mentioned 1 Corinthians 15, Dr. Fry, um, where Paul says, I delivered or passed on or tradition to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures. And so often when we, you know, regurgitate the apostolic faith, we just say, he died, he was buried, he rose again. But for Paul, it's in accordance with the scriptures. So that's why I like Irenaeus and I appreciate Irenaeus so much, is because uh, you know, his his summary of the apostolic teaching is basically just an exposition of the Old Testament in light of Christ. Uh he doesn't see you know the rule of faith as being something that is you know independent of scripture. Uh it's it's not something that that is stands apart from scripture, but in some way it it it uh the two are interrelated, and in some ways uh scripture has even the primacy um in giving us the rule of faith. At times it seems like Irenaeus almost says that, almost says that scripture is our rule of faith, but yet there's some kind of independent function for this this summary of what scripture teaches.
SPEAKER_03Yeah, remember, uh and Phil, I'd like to get your comment on this, but in in 2 Thessalonians 2, where Paul says that he he encourages the Thessalonian brothers to stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by the spoken word or by our letter. And so this what they are receiving and passing on is not all yet written down, and um and we don't know exactly what all Paul was was including in the the portion that is the spoken word, but we know that we have the essence of it in what was written.
SPEAKER_02Right.
SPEAKER_03And and so yeah, I'm interested in your uh comments on on that in particular in regard to the rule of faith in scripture.
SPEAKER_02Well, I think uh I affirm what you just said from 2 Thessalonians 2 15. Um what I don't so the Jewish uh state in the first century was that we had scripture and we had oral Torah passed down from Moses. I think I hear echoes of that in some people's uh way of thinking about how early church fathers were passing on verbal tradition from the apostles that didn't actually make it into scripture, but was was reflective of the apostles' teaching and thus had, oh, I don't know, some kind of secondary authority. Um I that's not the way I see it. I would say that uh one of the things that you know we have to wrestle with in canon is that the Holy Spirit didn't see fit to uh preserve all inspired, all apostolic writings. And I take it then that the Holy Spirit uh preserved the ones that he did that were recognized by believers as bearing the marks of inspiration and as authoritative from the moment of their penning, um, because that's the those were the parameters, the guidelines, the rules, the canon, all of those terms function synonymously uh for believers' faith. Now, uh articulations of that, syntheses of that are helpful, and that's what I think we're seeing when we when we listen to Irenaeus and Tertullian, that they have distilled and synthesized data in a way that helps us see the large-scale theological skeleton, so to speak, of Revelation, and that uh we then want to make sure that we've understood properly what they've said in the light of scripture, evaluate what they've said by scripture. Uh so I I don't um am I even talking at in the direction you were pointing? Well, go ahead, Dr. Fry. I have a qua follow-up question, but yeah, go ahead if you want to explain.
SPEAKER_03And I don't want to I don't want to draw us into all the many different avenues, so I want to try to stay stay focused here, but I do want to let me throw out uh a an example. So uh Christians keeping Sabbath on Sunday. Uh that is something that we see practice in the New Testament, but we don't see that specific instruction that it is that that Christian Sabbath has to be on Sunday, right? So I often refer to that as this is probably the longest tradition in the Christian era, is that Christians meet on Sunday, and that's why we meet on Sunday. Um, is that part of the rule of faith? Well, it's certainly not in a confession, it's not in the creeds, um, and yet it is certainly part of uh, as you referenced earlier, kind of the the larger body of faithful living that is passed down to us. And so that kind of stretches uh a person may want to stretch the rule of faith. I think Jonathan earlier uh we were talking, you know, someone uh mentioned maybe to you say, well, the Westminster Confession is my rule of faith. Um okay, well, that's not quite what the you know Antonicine uh reference was. Uh they were um you know it's it's something that's quite narrow. Um so I think there is maybe a very uh a lot of concept slippage in a phrase like the rule of faith that we need to be aware of.
SPEAKER_02Yeah, right. So uh the Sabbath is uh a great example of how I see Christian tradition being helpful to uh explain the use of the Lord's day in Revelation 110, a term that doesn't show up anywhere else before that, and yet looking at its post uh scripture reception uh and it's the universal reception in a certain way, I I see what I call circumstantial evidence of first uh first day gathering, Sunday Sabbath in the New Testament, first Corinthians 16 2. And uh seems like there's one other verse that's slipping in my mind right now, but um but I can't say to a person you must because I say things like it's reasonable, it's theologically coherent, um and if when Jesus comes back he tells us that we got it wrong for the last 2,000 plus years and that we really should have been worshiping on uh the seventh day, I will say, you know, I did the best I could, sorry. Um and not but I don't fear that somehow I'm distorting uh any part of God's word by seeing this theological shift. Uh seeing the shift in in celebration rooted in a theology of creation and new creation, of life-giving and resurrection, and and so on.
SPEAKER_01When we say, though, that you know, this issue um doesn't pertain to maybe the rule of faith strictly so-called. There's a rule of faith in a more strict sense. Uh, I mean, the most famous example people would know is probably the Apostles' Creed, um, which is very, very similar to what we see in Irenaeus, some of the same, the same uh articles, it's three primary articles, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and then those articles are just fleshed out to varying degrees. Even the Nicene Creed is really just a further exposition of what we mean in the Apostles' Creed when we say he is the only son. What does that mean? Well, it means he was begotten, not made for all ages. So uh one of I guess one of the concerns I would have is uh I just I wouldn't want people to think that when we talk about the rule of faith, we are first and foremost talking about um, you know, even the church's consensual interpretation of secondary matters in scripture, like uh, you know, Sabbath worship, but that we're first and foremost talking about the the uh the apostolic teaching concerning uh got the God who is Father, Son, and Spirit, and who's done all things uh in Christ. So that's that would be, I think, just to clarify, first and foremost, rule of faith, strictly so speaking, maybe rule with the capital R. We're talking here about summary of the heart of the faith, the the essential matters, the matters of first importance. And then secondarily, um, how the church has, would it be fair to say this, how the church has expounded that rule in in various secondary issues and its consensual exposition then uh weighs heavily in our subsequent interpretation? I guess what I'm asking is Dr. Fry, maybe you can answer, how do you take what you just you know were just discussing, and what category do you place that in? Because that's not in the same, it's not in the same category as rule of faith, you know.
SPEAKER_03Yeah, so first of all, you know, so so going back to Irenaeus and Tertullian, so they are using this phrase, Irenaeus first, because they're dealing with Christological heresies. And and they are recognizing that a reader can read certain passages and come to certain heretical understandings of Christ. And so they are reading scripture with the church, uh with with the apostles, with the church of their time, and recognizing that the um the life, the worship, and the scripture, and all that has been passed down requires a certain understanding of Jesus Christ that you know we know as the orthodox understanding of who Christ is. And so that's the context in which rule of faith language rises. As we consider what is or is not a rule of faith, I think we need to be aware of a couple of concepts. One is we need to be careful in what we say is outside of the rule of faith, as distinguished from what we say is against the rule of faith. And so, for instance, the Sabbath discussion is not against the rule of faith. There's nothing in the rule of faith, there's nothing in the New Testament, there's nothing in the apostolic rule of faith that would incline us to practice otherwise. Um and we could talk about other things. So recently, Chris Bounds mentioned uh Augustine's late view of grace and his particular understanding of the effectiveness of grace. And um, and I would say that that's an example also of an understanding of grace that is outside the rule of faith. The rule of faith does not require one to agree with Augustine. I think he went so far as to say it was against the rule of faith. I would not be comfortable saying it's against the rule of faith, uh, but I would say it's outside. So so that would be secondary matters. And so I think those that conceptual difference is really important to understand as well.
SPEAKER_01Yes, that's that's very helpful. I think I needed those categories because I was I was feeling like that muddied the waters a bit for me. And and I think uh I think that's helpful. I want to give an example because it's very well known, but it's very helpful to understand the rule of faith, especially in like Irenaeus' thinking. So he uses illustration of a mosaic. You know, we've all seen these really beautiful mosaics and how um you know there's all these different pieces that have to be put together in the right way. And he says, you know, that's like scripture. There's all these, there's all these different passages and contours, and and um, and and the heretics take scripture like the pieces of a mosaic and they arrange it in a way that it creates the picture of a fox. But the mosaic of scripture is supposed to help us see Christ. Uh, all of scripture is fulfilled in Christ, it's pointing us to Christ. And so the rule of faith is like a key. So when they would ship a mosaic, they would have a key so that somebody knew how to put it together in the proper way when they had all the pieces disassembled. And the rule of faith is like that key. It's it helps us to see how uh the big picture of who God is and who Christ is and what God is doing in creation and in creating and redeeming all things. And so it helps us when we read scripture to put the pieces in the right order so that we get a picture of the king, because the mosaic is supposed to give us the picture of a king. And so uh without any rule of faith, we we have you know this danger that we will misassemble the mosaic. I think that the concern is that then it says, well, we somebody would say, well, then we can't read scripture without something outside of scripture. And so this is where it seems like what I re Irenaeus says is that actually this rule of faith emerges from a very plain reading of scripture. So in some ways, scripture itself supplies you with the very rule by which you can interpret the whole in light of Christ. Would that be a fair, fair summary?
SPEAKER_03Yes, yes, to comment on that. So uh that this uh strikes at the intersection of systematic theology and an X an exegesis, or what sometimes we call biblical theology, and we mean exegetical theology. So I the way I describe systematic theology is that it includes uh not only what we do with the text, we we read the text and then we draw out uh implications, but it's also trying to understand the assumptions that the text is making. And so I would agree that the rule of faith, as Tertullian, Irenaeus, as they uh understood it, that they are saying that this is what scripture is assuming to be true without uh necessarily overtly arguing for say um you know so there's not a scripture that says God exists in uh you know one substance and three persons. Uh, but all of these other scriptures necessitate that understanding of God. So there is, I would agree, that the rule of faith is uh embedded in scripture, and that part of what we do both in exegesis and systematically is we have to try to discern the presuppositions of the text because it does have presuppositions. Another classic one is the nature of free will that is a notoriously complicated and difficult systematic theological issue, but uh one of the things that various Christian theologians of different perspectives agree on is that scripture uh has indicators that would indicate a certain understanding of what it means to be free creatures. Uh so that's another example.
SPEAKER_02You know, Jonathan, I like uh what you just said about the key in the mosaic. That's helpful. And if I could just kind of play with that metaphor just a moment, uh the person who's putting the mosaic together does two things. First of all, he lays the key out as a basis for assembling the mosaic, colors, uh outlines, and so on. But then as he goes along, he's checking each piece against the key. Now, in our case, because the the uh rule of faith is condensation, distillation, uh you know, the that key doesn't actually tell us the nature of free will. It it doesn't help us sharply define all of those edges and how it intersects with divine sovereignty and so on. But that that there is such a thing as human will, that there is such a thing as responsibility, that there is, right? Well, that's all very clear, and that that is in embedded in that distillation. So uh there's this is how exegetical theology, if you want to call it that, comes back around and evaluates claims being made. Well, does it fit within the general pattern? And then do uh do you have all the data uh put together in a way that it's coherent and cogent? Um and thus there's both play and boundaries, there's freedom and fixity provided there.
SPEAKER_03Let me mention something else that I did not mention when I uh gave the kind of the two parts of the rule of faith, and that is that a rule of faith had significance for Christian worship, especially because uh the rule of faith was often given in the form of a confession. And so I think it would be worth uh dwelling on for a moment the role. Of confession, of the rule, of using a rule of faith, such as the Apostles' Creed, uh, in worship, and why that was so important for the early church and why it may be important for us today.
SPEAKER_01So I just preached on this Sunday morning, actually. Um, our church is making some really exciting steps in uh towards more systematic and consistent discipleship. And I've really wanted to take advantage of the resources that the church has used in forming the faithful for 2,000 years. Um, you know, we hear a lot about the need for discipleship resources, and I certainly, I certainly share that concern. I do think, though, that sometimes we overlook that uh for for most of history, the church has had three foundational primary resources for discipleship, and that has been the Apostles' Creed, the Ten Commandments, and the Lord's Prayer. Almost every ancient catechism is just an explanation of those, uh, just breaking those down. And um, so I've I've tried to promote uh the role of the creeds in in baptism, uh, understanding how, you know, at baptism there is, there is in some sense a passing on of this faith, you know, whole and unbroken, the faith once for all delivered. Um, and then this subsequent discipleship, you know, teaching all things which Jesus has commanded, is really just taking us deeper into this faith. It's it's in the context of this, uh, you know, this whole body of truth that we that we receive. So I think that um for for for Christian worship, uh continuing to remind ourselves of the faith once for all delivered, continuing to bring ourselves and calling the church and renewing our commitment to earnestly contend for that really creates the context in which all of our other teaching happens. So I'll just give this example and then stop. But so recently I talked to this pastor who said they were they were teaching a series on basic Bible doctrines. I said, you know, hey, what are you what are you teaching? What are you preaching on? And yeah, I said, Oh, that's great. And he said, Yeah, yeah. So we're uh, you know, one of my lessons is on entire sanctification. I said, Okay, so are you planning to uh, you know, talk about the resurrection of the body? Uh, well, no, I wasn't, I wasn't planning on doing that. And I'm like, whoa, that's a huge problem. And so we had this like two-hour conversation. And and finally I asked some questions like this would you rather a Calvinist agree with you on the resurrection of the body or on your particular paradigm for Christian sanctification? Well, yeah, the resurrection. So I think um by by prioritizing this, these summaries, these rules of faith in our discipleship, in our practice of the sacraments, in our worship, we create the proper and the healthy context for all other teaching, because no longer is entire sanctification viewed as something alongside these other truths or as something separate from these other truths, but as our exposition of how God the Father, in sending the Son and the Spirit, renews us in the image of God to such an extent that, and then we expound our our particular understanding of entire sanctification or or of sanctification more generally. So, um, yeah, for for us, I think it's really, really foundational to discipleship, uh, and that really begins at worship because discipleship ought to flow out of liturgy.
SPEAKER_02So if I could respond to what you're saying, Dave, um oftentimes the uh the pushback within pietistic circles to uh creeds and their regular use is that they lose their meaning through repetition. And I I think there might actually be a uh a key to help crack that nut in a lot of people's minds. Do you object to singing the hymns repeatedly? Why is it that we sing good hymns regularly? Well, we do it because it actually helps us internalize our faith. That's why Wesley wrote those hymns. So have you ever sung a hymn and not thought about the words at all? Well, of course. So it's possible for even that element of um our tradition to lose its meaning. So what do we have to do? We have to say to you know, we we we encourage the song leader to comment on the theological content of the hymn, call our attention to it. Well, we do the same thing with the creeds. You know, I'm ministering right now in a tradition where we say the creed in every single service, um, and it's provided multiple opportunities for me to comment from. So, what do we mean by one holy Catholic Church? Well, uh, I can explain the word Catholic, but then I can come back and explain the word holy. And this provides an opportunity for saying that look, right here embedded within our affirmation of faith, is the apostolic expectation that we share the character of God, not just corporately, but personally. Um, and how does God help us share that character? Well, we can have a message on that, and we can we can talk about that.
SPEAKER_03Yeah, yeah, that's beautiful. And I think that's what makes the creed so rich as a rule of faith, is that they're intended to be unpacked. They're intended to be focused on each word and to and and to that to drive you back to scripture and say, okay, let's let's see what where this is coming from. Um so rich, so rich. Um and so I'm actually uh Jonathan, you did a great job, by the way, at the outreach and bus convention. You spoke uh on a little bit on that. That was uh one of your points was uh on uh using uh the creeds. And so that's one of my takeaways is I talked to my staff and I challenge them and say, okay, what what's a takeaway from what you heard and what are you gonna do about uh that was one of mine. That is uh we we practice communion every week. We go to this table, we practice that. Uh we say the creed at our own dinner table in our my home, the nice creed, we recite it. I thought, why have we done that at church? So I stand convicted as a pastor. Uh if any of any of my people are listening to this, get ready. Uh pull out your uh your refresher and let's uh get ready. We're gonna say it.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, I I I wonder too, um, you know, how our discipleship would look different uh if we really just grounded everything in in the uh in the faith once for all delivered. Because it doesn't often involve, it doesn't always involve saying different things. Uh, but when you place when you place our distinctives and our commitments in their Trinitarian context, uh it really does bring a lot, uh makes the faith much more holistic, much more beautiful. And then it brings us around to like one of the concepts that I want to have Dr. Brown back on to discuss another time, is on categories of truth and of certainty and understanding that you know, what we as Christians believe, what what unites us is this faith. This is what we're about, this is where we find our identity. But then as a tradition, this is how we expound it, this is how our church expounds it. This is so discipleship, you know, is not about um first and foremost um helping people to align with our distinctives or our tradition. It's about first and foremost giving them the faith. And then once they have the faith, now they've been they're invited into a community where we're on this lifelong journey to just go deeper and deeper into this faith. And what that means for us here is that the Father who sent the Son and the Spirit renews us, you know, to such an extent that. So that that context, I just think uh really, really helps us to to bring a lot of health and beauty to to our distinctives.
SPEAKER_02So here's one thing that I think we would need to take another session to engage, but then I I'm drawing from George Patterson and his work on uh church multiplication. He his emphasis was that the Great Commission said teach them to do, teach them to keep, not teach them to know, not teach them to think, but teach them to do. And so I would love to hear a discussion in which we think through the practical theological application of these uh creedal formulations and how we can tie uh love for neighbor uh and all of its manifestations uh into uh these these frameworks and see them as reinforcing, not in somehow in tension with one another.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, and that would be tremendous. And let me just throw this out there. So I've been wrestling with that very question, and I so our we're offering here in the spring uh a class for uh baptism candidates, and uh we're we're basing it on the apostles' creed, but because I've had this same concern, I I've structured every lesson uh with three sections. So the first section is what do we believe? And it's an exposition of a line from the creed. The second section is how then should we live? So, you know, he is ascended. Well, how then should we live? Well, we should set our minds on things above, you know, we should put on the new man, we should so and then and then thirdly, how then should we pray? So it's it's it's uh structured according to the creed, but then it's drawing heavily on the Ten Commandments and and prayer. And one of the reasons why, uh, and I'm not sure how this is all going to turn out, but the really reasons why I want to do this is even a lot of historical catechisms, it's like you you have this long section on the creed, then a long section on the 10 commandments, then a long section on prayer. And sometimes I think it can seem like you know, theology, the faith, our beliefs more objectively is something separate from so we have people making statements like, well, theology is good and it's good that you know the creed, but what really matters is holy living. And I'm like, no, I live holy because of that faith. That's everything. So what do we believe? How then should we live? How then should we pray?
SPEAKER_03Yeah, let's we need to come to a close, and I I want to I'll offer this closing comment, and then if you all have closing comments, we welcome that. I think mine is this that the rule of faith reminds us that we read scripture and we live it out in community. That the rule of faith is what uh anchors us to the gift that God has given to us in the church, and uh that rule of faith, including the the creeds, are an important part of that. Final reflections?
SPEAKER_02So if you hadn't said that, I would have said that. And since you did say it, let me say amen, and uh just follow up with uh even as the Holy Spirit uh serves as our teacher, illuminating to us Christ through the scriptures, uh humility, the the humility of Christ in us is that we are not the recipient of all light. We need the light that the Holy Spirit sheds in other people, and therefore we must be listening in our humility. And the the rule of faith then uh says uh, well, here's the boundaries within which you you listen, and you'll find that scripture fits these boundaries. The boundaries were created by the scriptures, and these guide then your application and formulation.
SPEAKER_00Thank you for listening to the Holy Joys Podcast. Email your questions to podcast at holyjoys.org, and they may be featured on a future episode. Our labors for a holy happy church are supported by generous listeners like you. Please pray about partnering with us at holyjoys.org forward slash donate.
