Believers Church Tradition, Essay Example

Part 1. It is of very considerable importance that the believer maintain a view of holy scripture that is right and in accordance with the truths that it reveals. This is the fundamental insight to be gleaned from Bloesch: it is necessary to view scripture and divine revelation aright, and not be bound by either of the two views that Bloesch delineates as in error. Those two views are an overreliance on rationalism at the expense of understanding revelation rightly, and an overreliance on personal revelation and experience, at the cost of the centrality of holy scripture. As Bloesch explains, Word and Spirit must be seen as working together. Failure to do this undermines the ability of the believer to understand scripture and revelation in a biblically correct manner, one that honors scripture and revelation both.[1]

As Bloesch explains, evangelical rationalism envisions Scripture as being virtually synonymous with divine revelation, and applies reason to either find truth from principles found in scripture, or else derives principles from what is actually recorded in Scripture.[2] The problem with this is that it impoverishes the believer’s spiritual life, by not giving the experience of the Holy Spirit its due. Failure to properly consider experience leads to a reliance on rationalism to interpret the Scripture, a thoroughly lacking and unsatisfactory state of affairs. The seminal problem with the rationalists is their lack of due recognition for the importance of faith, and the personal experience with the Holy Spirit it makes possible.[3]

On the other hand, the believer must also be cautioned against the errors of experientialism, which de-emphasizes the importance of biblical revelation to its detriment. Where the rationalist treats Scripture as a text to be pored over, neglecting the spiritual dimension, experientialism does not give Scripture its proper place as an authoritative source of revelation. Bloesch explains that the biblical view is one in which the Bible is true in the revelational sense: “The truth of the Bible is the revelational meaning of the events that are described, not the events in and of themselves.”[4]

The Bible, then, is a source of revealed truths, but it is by the agency of the Holy Spirit that these truths are made manifest to the individual heart. This is absolutely vital to understand, and believers that understand it will benefit accordingly to a tremendous degree. Understanding Scripture and revelation aright enables the believer to experience the fullness of the riches of a walk with God. Thus, understanding this can allow the believer to live a more fulfilled and satisfactory life. As Bloesch says: “The gospel is not simply an experience of divine power but a divine message that both illumines our mind and liberates our will so that we can make a meaningful commitment to our Savior.”[5]

A proper view of Scripture and of revelation has many applications to the spiritual life. Bloesch explains that later in the history of Protestant scholasticism, there was a tendency to downplay the humanity of Christ, to the point where it was lost sight of altogether. For example, the later Protestant scholastics tended to de-emphasize or even deny that Jesus experienced very real temptation. There was also a tendency to think that he was “limited in his knowledge of the world and history.”[6] Failure to properly understand Christ is failure to properly understand what it was that He did for us: after all, if he did not encounter very real temptation and overcome it, this cheapens his actual presence on earth, and very arguably cheapens the grace He purchased for us with His death on the cross. The Bible, too, has two natures: human and divine. It is the revelation that comes from God, but it comes through human writers that were inspired by God. Properly understood, Bloesch says, the Bible is a document that conveys the revelation: it participates in the Word of God, something that is transcendent. It does this by the agency, by the mediation, of the Spirit. Through this understanding, the believer can be better prepared to encounter the Holy Spirit, by keeping an open heart, and to learning from the Scripture what the Spirit imparts.[7]

The foundational error of the rationalist is a neglect of the Spirit. The Word of God cannot be reduced to the text of Scripture, although it is manifest in Scripture by the agency of the Holy Spirit. The Bible reveals God’s person and God’s truth alike, meaning that revelation is both personal and propositional, or dialogical as Bloesch also says.[8] On the other hand, the experientialist misses out on revelation because of their emphasis on personal revelation: by so emphasizing, they cut themselves off from the authentic revelation of God’s person, and the revelation of God’s mind to our own. Understanding the Bible and the Holy Spirit rightly can help the believer in their walk by helping them to be open to all that God has in store for them.

Following Harper and Metzger, much of contemporary sensibilities about the nature of the church are in error. The church, they explain, is a being-driven community, or communion even, between believers and God. More specifically, the church is trinitarian because God is trinitarian, and the church belongs to Him. This is the most important and foundational thing to understand, and a clear diagnosis of the problem with contemporary understandings of the church as purpose-driven. There can be no purpose without being, and the nature of being dictates purpose and makes it manifest. Understanding the nature and substance of the church, therefore, is of foundational import if one is to understand its true purpose.[9]

The identity of the church is communal and relational, since God by His very nature is communal and relational, consisting of three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The church consists of the people of God, and the body and bride of Christ. From this identity comes the church’s purpose, because—as is evident upon reflection—the identity of the church is purposive. The purpose of the church is love of God and others, a purpose that very clearly flows from the church’s identity as a community created by the love of God in order to love God and others. Contemporary American ideas of the church that start with a mission have it exactly backwards: the church needs to know who it is before it can know what it does.[10]

Beginning in Genesis with the creation of human beings, it is established that human beings have relational identities. American culture is highly individualistic, and has lost sight of this, but fundamentally the identity of the individual is—or properly ought to be—seen in terms of relationships with others. Humans were not made to be independent of the Creator, nor were they made to be independent of each other: as Harper and Metzger point out, following Genesis 1:26-27 God created humanity in His own image, and created them male and female. The evangelical-fundamentalist tradition has gotten a great many things right, but it has erred in over-emphasizing the individual. This comes in reaction to modernity, and it is understandable in light of historic tendencies in the church toward institutionalization at the cost of the individual, but nonetheless, it comes at the cost of missing the degree to which human beings are intended to be communal and relational.[11]

Understanding the true, relational character of the church is fundamental to overcoming the errors of American individualism as it has been imbibed by the contemporary church in America. If the believer sees themselves as a part of a living community, one involving the three persons of God as well as other people, they will lead a much richer and more fulfilling existence. The spiritual life is always personal in some sense, inasmuch as God does deal with people as individuals to no small degree, but God also works with and through people in a community. No person is an island—or at least, no person was meant to be an island—and understanding the relational identity of the church is necessary if one is to understand one’s own identity as a believer, and what one is called to.[12]

The church is also a community that must look towards the future, since the church is a community with an eschatology. Eschatology is important if one is to understand how one is supposed to function within the church, and if the church as a whole is to understand how it is to function in anticipation of the future. An ecclesiology without a proper view of eschatology is fundamentally and profoundly lacking. Here, much contemporary eschatology focuses on the fulfillment of biblical prophecies. The problem with focusing overmuch on these is that it can detract from a focus on how the church is supposed to act in the now, anticipating the future. The church, Harper and Metzger explain, is a community both of fulfillment and of hope: of fulfillment, since it has been fulfilled by God through Christ’s sacrifice and the right relations with God made possible thereby, and hope, since believers have hope in the future.[13]

The lessons of these two books could be no clearer. It is of fundamental importance that the believer have a right understanding of scripture and of revelation, so that they can appreciate how God speaks to humanity. A right view of Scripture and of revelation is fundamental to living a rightly-guided life, in accordance with what God has revealed of Himself, and continues to reveal. It is also imperative that the individual believer understands their position within the church community, and that their identity is fundamentally relational. By so doing, the believer can establish a biblically correct understanding of themselves and of others, and facilitate the common weal of the church. And by so doing, the church can fulfill the mission of its being.

Part 2—A. General revelation is the knowledge of God given to all human beings. It can be seen, arguably, not only in the hand of the Creator in nature, but also even in elements of supernatural revelation found throughout the world: the belief in God, or at least gods, which seems to be a cultural universal. Here there is some disagreement, however, with some authors holding that general revelation consists solely of natural proofs of God. In essence, general revelation might be described as the ability of human beings to perceive God and His divine thoughts, an ability which is only made possible by the grace of God, and which can lead people to repentance and a saving knowledge of Christ.[14] The purpose of general revelation is to impart some knowledge of God to all people, but it is not intended to impart specific knowledge of humanity’s sinfulness and God’s grace through Christ.[15]

I will admit that a part of me finds general revelation puzzling. To what extent can it be said that nature itself is a revelation, if somebody does not believe in a Creator? I am familiar with arguments against the concept of nature as a general revelation of God, and they all revolve around something called “begging the question”: the basic idea is that one cannot assume the very premise one is trying to prove. In other words, this argument says that if one wishes to say nature is a revelation of the Creator, well and good, but one must provide evidence. I find this somewhat difficult to understand, but at least in my experience I have no problem in choosing to see nature as the handiwork of the Almighty, and I know many other people do as well.

Special revelation is God’s own supernatural revelation of Who He is, the history of His dealings with humankind, and humanity’s status before Him: as sinners in need of salvation by the free gift of Christ’s sacrifice. Special revelation is fulfilled in Christ: Christ is the ultimate purpose of special revelation, inasmuch as it was by His sacrifice on the cross that we are saved from our sins. This revelation must be received by faith, and by the grace of God.[16] One argument that I have heard some skeptics make, an argument which has troubled me more than I care to admit, is that the claims of Christianity to special revelation are comparable in some ways with the claims of other religions. Specifically, they say that religions like Islam also claim special revelation, and their followers often report direct experiences of God. I can certainly draw on my own experience of God’s power in my life, and the saving relationship that I have in Christ, but it has troubled me on those occasions when I have been unable to reach my unbelieving and skeptical friends and family members. I suppose this is testament to the importance of trusting in God to do His work in the hearts of different individuals, and waiting to see how they respond.

Part 2—B. Following Luther, it is of foundational importance to maintain the centrality of Scripture. The sola scriptura doctrine says that Scripture, not tradition, is the source of divine revelation. As seen in Part 1, of course, it is also necessary to understand this revelation as mediated by the agency of the Holy Spirit, but the seminal point here is that Scripture is the revelation, and if one listens to the Holy Spirit it is sufficient revelation. Specifically, if one will open one’s heart to God, Scripture contains sufficient revelation to lead one to salvation and inform one of how to lead a life that is in accordance with the will of God. Scripture relates salvation history, the story of God’s dealings with humanity from creation to the Fall to the cross, the empty tomb, and the future expectation of the new age. All of this has profound ramifications for how humanity should respond to God and to Scripture. Crucially, it also means that the traditions of the medieval and early modern churches are accretions, and in some cases extremely unbiblical ones.[17]

Importantly, however, this does not mean that Scripture is the only thing that the Christian needs to live a good Christian life and maintain strong faith. The position of Scripture is very, very important in this regard, but it alone is not the only thing that is needed. Maintaining openness to the voice and guidance of the Holy Spirit is needed, as is participation in the church.[18] And there has been a tendency in modern times to be over-confident in human reason, which again underscores the valuable point that one must rely on the Holy Spirit to guide one in understanding and interpreting the Scripture. By maintaining a right view of Scripture in relation to everything else, the believer and the church can realize their potential, the potential of the life that God has called them to.[19]

Realizing the life that God has called the individual believer and the church community alike to partake in is an invitation to joy. The desire of God’s heart is to share with us the fullness of His joy, and a changed life in Him. By understanding the necessity of Scripture, and of the revelation mediated by the Spirit, the believer has access to the means of living a life in communion with God, learning from God and living in a manner that is fulfilled. This mentality is vital for the church as a whole, since the individual exists in relation to the collective body and since the collective body of the church is called to be relational. From this understanding of identity, then, comes everything: a knowledge of who we are as God’s people can lead us to an understanding of what it is that God desires we do. This, then, is the key to living in the manner that God has intended for us, transformed by His Word and power.

Bibliography

Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. 1932 and 1938. Reprint combined edition, Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1996.

Bloesch, Donald. Holy Scripture. 1994. Reprint, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009.

Bouman, Stephen P. From the Parish for the Life of the Word. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 2004.

Carson, D.A. and Timothy Keller. “Gospel-Centered Ministry.” In The Gospel as Center: Renewing Our Faith and Reforming Our Ministry Practices, edited by D.A. Caron and Timothy Keller, 11-23. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012.

Grenz, Stanley. Theology for the Community of God. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000.

Harper, Brad, and Paul Metzger. Exploring Ecclesiology: An Evangelical and Ecumenical Introduction. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2009.

Mathison, Keith A. The Shape of Sola Scriptura Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2001.

Thomas, Owen C., and Ellen K. Wondra. Introduction to Theology, 3^rd ed. Harrisburg, PA: Morehouse Publishing, 2002.

[1] Donald Bloesch, Holy Scripture (1994; repr., Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009), 11-20.

[2] Bloesch, Holy Scripture, 18.

[3] Bloesch, Holy Scripture, 18-20.

[4] Bloesch, Holy Scripture, 18-20.

[5] Bloesch, Holy Scripture, 20.

[6] Bloesch, Holy Scripture, 69.

[7] Bloesch, Holy Scripture, 69-71.

[8] Bloesch, Holy Scripture, 71-72.

[9] Brad Harper and Paul Metzger, Exploring Ecclesiology: An Evangelical and Ecumenical Introduction (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2009), 19-20.

[10] Harper and Metzger, Exploring Ecclesiology, 20.

[11] Harper and Metzger, Exploring Ecclesiology, 39-40.

[12] Harper and Metzger, Exploring Ecclesiology, 40.

[13] Harper and Metzger, Exploring Ecclesiology, 48.

[14] Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (1932 and 1938; repr. combined edition, Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1996), 129.

[15] Stanley Grenz, Theology for the Community of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000), 133-134.

[16] Owen C. Thomas and Ellen K. Wondra, Introduction to Theology, 3^rd ed. (Harrisburg, PA: Morehouse Publishing, 2002), 33-34.

[17] Keith A. Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2001), 256-258.

[18] Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura, 258.

[19] D.A. Carson and Timothy Keller, “Gospel-Centered Ministry,” in The Gospel as Center: Renewing Our Faith and Reforming Our Ministry Practices, ed. D.A. Caron and Timothy Keller (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012), 11-13; Stephen P. Bouman, From the Parish for the Life of the Word (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 2004), 105.