.JPG)
In the early church, at the time of the Apostles, the Scripture was what we now call the "Old Testament." The New Testament teaching was embodied in the oral teaching of the apostles and their representatives (people like Timothy or Titus). As circumstances required, letters, histories, and gospels were written by the apostles or their representatives (such as Mark and Luke). These writings, some of which only went to certain church assemblies at first, spread through the church in process of time, and were regarded as inspired, just like the Old Testament. As the apostles passed from the scene, their immediate heirs taught the church through a combination of the memory of the oral teaching of the apostles and the written works by the apostles or their representatives. In time, the written record of the Old and New Testaments became the repository of truth for the whole church.
In the early period, before the fading of the direct, personal witness of the apostles, the memory of the nature of the apostolic teaching came to be called the "Rule of Faith." The Rule of Faith, with slight variations in each region of the Roman Empire, guided the interpretation of the (Old Testament) Scripture, and set the standard for the New Testament teaching, even in those churches which at that time did not yet possess the entire New Testament.
Several consequences flow from the nature of this historical process:
1) We ought to be curious about the "Rule of Faith" in the early, post-apostolic church. Though their deeper intellectual understanding of theology required considerable time for full development, their use and interpretation of the apostolically authorized writings and and their memory of the oral apostolic teaching is of value to us.
2) Regarding the development of Christian "denominations" we see a similar phenomenon. Each denomination has a "Rule of Faith," which is supposedly derived accurately from Scripture by the founders, which then guides further interpretation of Scripture, often for generations. When persons are "catechized" (even if it's not called that), they are taught the denominational Rule of Faith by which they afterward then interpret the Scripture. As a starting point, this is not wrong, because it is wrong to teach people to approach the Bible from "square one," as if they do not need the fellowship of their brothers in Christ or any preexisting system to interpret it.
Sadly, in many cases, the Rule of Faith is taught by non-contextual proof-texting from Scripture, so that those being taught are not aware of the existence of any Rule of Faith, though an unacknowledged Rule is nevertheless being used to govern their understanding of Scripture. The Scripture and their Rule cannot be distinguished, because the unacknowledged Rule by which they are being taught appears in their own eyes to be Scripture.
Sadly, in many cases, the Rule of Faith is taught by non-contextual proof-texting from Scripture, so that those being taught are not aware of the existence of any Rule of Faith, though an unacknowledged Rule is nevertheless being used to govern their understanding of Scripture. The Scripture and their Rule cannot be distinguished, because the unacknowledged Rule by which they are being taught appears in their own eyes to be Scripture.
It seems to me that several consequences follow from the phenomenon of the "Rule of Faith."
A) The learned in any denomination of Christian believers have a duty to discern what their own transcendent Rule of Faith really is, and to always be prepared to test their Rule against Scripture.
B) This process is beset by two dangers: 1) Questioning the Rule of Faith may be regarded as dangerous and unorthodox among strongly confessional churches, because it threatens changes in the Confession of Faith. These churches may put the Confession (Rule of Faith) above the Bible. 2) Questioning the Rule of Faith, as is done in more liberal churches, may become quite the fad (especially in an academic context), with the result that the historic faith and the truth of Scripture is dissipated with human philosophy and doubts. As a consequence of these two temptations those who critically question Rules of Faith and compare them to Scripture must walk a fine line.
I suggest (these suggestions are not all mine):
A) Rather than abandoning all Rules of Faith, and attempting to start over from the Bible ("reinventing the wheel"), one should start by discerning one's own Rule of Faith, which must be studied and compared with other versions of the Rule of Faith in other denominations, including that Rule of the early church. As it is claimed in the Reformed branch: "We must always be Reforming."
B) Hopefully, through concerted study on the part of all fellowships and denominations, a Scripturally based convergence may ensue over centuries, leading to increase of fellowship. After all, there is only one church.
As a consequence of these thoughts, we see that we must study how to interpret the Bible. This is called "hermeneutics." Presuppositions set in place at seminary may "program" future Bible teachers to interpret the Bible a certain way. But, any such presuppositions always need to be uncovered, investigated, and critiqued believingly.
