The "Rule of Faith"

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.

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.

Scripture vs. Theology

It's an old argument -- the Bible vs. "theology."

After 50 years of personal Christianity, a good deal of that time to the present spent reading theology and church history, I find that the "Bible vs. theology" issue is still very much alive.  And, I'm not talking about arguments with folks who are against "theology."  I'm talking about how Protestant theology, supposedly based in Scripture, can run amok on its own trajectory, regardless of what the Scripture plainly teaches.

Just to give concrete context, I've lately been reading some of the arguments about "neo-Calvinism."  But, regardless of the issue of neo-Calvinism, it's clear to me that the broad spectrum of theology in the Reformed "camp" contains many strains, from "neo-Calvinism" to "pietism," which definitely have a life of their own apart from the well-balanced interpretation of Scripture.

We have to see that our difficulty sticking with the Scripture is part and parcel of the spiritual warfare.  In that war, submission to God's Word is not optional.  Therefore, we must pay attention to the study of the Scripture, the history of the interpretation of Scripture (there has been 2000 years of it, since Christ), and, as a consequence of all this, we must understand the theology of Scripture.  We must give divine wisdom and instruction precedence over the Word of Man that passes for "theology" in our circles every day.

The Hegemony of the New Testament

Its hard to believe that so many aberrations of historic Reformed theology have developed in the 20th and 21st centuries.

Most of these aberrations can be cured by the application of two principles from the Scripture and from historic Reformed Theology.  These principles are:

1)  The New Testament reveals the hermeneutic for all of Scripture.

Then He said to them, "These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me."  And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures.  Then He said to them, "Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.  And you are witnesses of these things.  Behold, I send the Promise of My Father upon you; but tarry in the city of Jerusalem until you are endued with power from on high."     Luke 24:44-49

2)  The world-view of the New Testament is age-long.

"Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name's sake.  And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another.  Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many.  And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold.  But he who endures to the end shall be saved.  And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come. Matthew 24:9-14

If then you were raised with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God.  Set your mind on things above, not on things on the earth.  For you died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God.  When Christ who is our life appears, then you also will appear with Him in glory.  Colossians 3:1-4 

When these two principles are applied, all sorts of doctrinal distortions fade away.

Most of the aberrations that face Reformed theology rely on a judaizing hermeneutic which forces a foreign understanding upon the New Testament, originating from a false interpretation of the Old.  This, in turn, requires an implicit or explicit denial that the New Testament world-view is age-long.

The implications of these two principles are revolutionary for those caught in a false hermeneutic.

Hermeneutics and the Mystery of the Kingdom (v3)

And He [Jesus] said to them, "To you it has been given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God; but to those who are outside, all things come in parables, ...                     Mark 4:11

We are aware of how much the zealous Jews of Jesus' day looked for the coming of the Messianic Kingdom.  We are also aware of how their wishes did not seem to be satisfied by Jesus' deportment, even though he said that the Kingdom of God had come.  They did not see him or those associated with him organizing the army and all other things necessary to bring in that Kingdom in its fullness.  Jesus even said to Pilate that "my Kingdom is not of this world, else my servants would fight."

Jesus' answer to the common messianic expectation was to preach and teach in parables "so that those who were outside would not understand."  There are several astounding revelations made here.  For one, it is a clear premonition of what Paul (and Jesus) speak of, when they note that the Kingdom has been taken away from the Jews and given to the Gentiles until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in.  The parables were spoken to the Jews, but only the rare elect, who were mostly personally instructed by Jesus, really understood them.  Secondly, the phase of the Kingdom of God introduced by Jesus' advent does not look like the Jewish Messianic expectation.  All this is covered by the term 'mystery,' to emphasize that there were developments in the manifestation of the Kingdom at Jesus' time which were not prophesied in the prophetic scriptures (Old Testament), and that these unrevealed aspects are more than important -- they are paradigmatic.  That is, the newly revealed (former) mysteries change the whole look and feel of the Kingdom in ways that could not be understood from the messianic prophecies alone.

Now, we need not overplay the 'mystery,' as if nothing about Gentile salvation and the nature of the future Kingdom were prophesied.  But there were many mysteries unrevealed, since those prophets desired to look into the things that they prophesied which pertain to us, but they were providentially limited in their understanding.  (1 Pet 1:10-12)  There were 'mysteries' of the Kingdom which were unrevealed to them, but which are revealed during the ministry of Jesus.

The Biblical-Historical hermeneutic to be drawn from this is that we must, in our Kingdom expectations and eschatology, be centered on the interpretation of the Kingdom which is provided for us in the New Testament.  The New Testament canonically elucidates and interprets the Old, not the other way around!

If this procedure is not adhered to, then a "judaizing" hermeneutic can pervade our interpretation of the scripture.  This judaizing can either disconnect the Old Testament from the church (as in dispensationalism), or (as in some elements of dominion theology) can color our expectations in this age to expect glory in worldly terms rather than seeing it to be hidden (but real), and experienced most often in our tribulations.

The lesson:  The New Testament teaching on the Kingdom of God must guide and direct our understanding of the prophets and the messianic age.