Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
All Christians are urban Christians. Whether you live in Graceville, Florida or Chicago, Illinois, the believer is on a pilgrim's journey from the City of Destruction to the Celestial City. You are not alone in your journey. As we travel the narrow path from our current city to the one whose Architect and builder is the living God, one such traveler is Urban Puritano.
Welcome to Urban Puritano episode 20, revelations and traditions, the rule of faith according to the bible. As we get started on today's episode, I wanted to remind the listeners that they can always check out some free resources on my website, urbanpuritano.com. That's urbanpuritan with an o after the n.com. It reflects my bilingual, bicultural interests as far as dark predestinarian ruminations are concerned. But in any case, please check out urbanpuritano.com for some blog articles and a hub for this podcast.
Speaker 1:I hope that it blesses you and if you so desire please keep me on your prayer list so that these resources can continue to come forth. I don't mind if you share them, if you use them, if you take it and run with it like a baton and use it in your local church, teaching ministry there, or with family and friends. So keep it locked on urban.com. Standard protestant confessionalism as reflected in such confessions of faith such as the 2nd London Baptist confession and the Westminster confession of faith among others clearly confess that the canonical scriptures alone to be the rule of faith and life for the Christian. Stay tuned and gird your loins as we scratch the surface on answering the question surrounding what the bible says about the rule of faith.
Speaker 1:All Christians are urban Christians. Whether you live in Graceville, Florida or Chicago, Illinois, the believer is on a pilgrim's journey from the city of destruction to the celestial city. As we endeavor to live unto God in this world, our faith looks for the city which is to come, whose architect and builder is the living God. You are not alone on your journey. As you travel the narrow way, know that a great cloud of witnesses went before you.
Speaker 1:Many travel alongside you. And while the Lord tarries, many will follow the same path after you. But until the heavenly city is brought to us or we to it, one such pilgrim is your fellow traveler. He is Urban Puritano. Titus chapter 1 verse 9 famously says, holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and convict those who contradict.
Speaker 1:Question. Are all truths revealed by God for faith and practice consigned in the canonical scriptures? That is the question that we will occupy ourselves with in today's episode. Generally speaking, protestants often employ a cliche that goes like this. God has 2 books, a book of nature and a book of scripture.
Speaker 1:This pithy yet deceptively simplistic saying emphasizes God's choice to divide his revelation into the creation itself and the pages of holy writ. While the former is metaphorically a book that reveals or at least exemplifies divine truths, The latter is more properly the locus of divine truth. Whereas the book of nature is not verbal or propositional. The book of scripture is. So the books are not strictly equivalent or analogous in a revelatory way.
Speaker 1:Creation is very loosely then called a book. It's more like a picture book. However, the initial question doesn't have whatever natural revelation reveals through the book of nature in view. The question is directed towards special revelation and whether all divine truths for faith and practice are delivered and consigned to us in the canonical books of scripture. If not scripture alone, where else might have God directed the faithful to attend to the voice of God for specially revealed truths.
Speaker 1:What does the church answer? We may ask. What does history say? Is there a community consensus? What about tradition?
Speaker 1:Is there a difference between capital t and lowercase t tradition? What saith the scripture? We can't after all appeal to nature or creation for the answer. The appeal to scripture will render 1 of 2 possible answers. Either 1, all truths revealed by god for faith and practice are consigned in the canonical scriptures alone or 2, not all truths revealed by God for faith and practice are consigned in the canonical scriptures alone.
Speaker 1:The book of scripture is a target rich environment for testimony about itself. Data has to be gathered, collated, analyzed, and synthesized in the most rational and judicious way possible. Should we appeal first to a passage like Hebrews 1 12, which seems to present a variegated progression of divine revelation throughout redemptive history, culminating in the revelation of Christ as himself described in scripture. Perhaps second Timothy 3 16 and 17, which highlights that all of scripture is caused by divine inspiration and is precisely profitable for the issues of doctrine in life such that the pastor and by implication the sheep may be complete and thoroughly equipped for good works. Far from being insecure and uncertain, the appeal to scripture in pursuing an answer to our original question seems to be both necessary and sufficient to resolve the matter before us.
Speaker 1:This may present possibility number 2 with a dilemma. If we conclude that not all truths revealed by god for faith and practice are consigned in the canonical scriptures alone based on the text of scripture, extra biblical revelation of that conclusion is superfluous and unnecessary. Is it not? But let's not be too hasty. There may be relevant scriptures to consider that may undermine possibility number 1.
Speaker 1:John 2125 says, quote, and there are also many things that Jesus did which if they were written 1 by 1, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen. Close quote. So ends John's gospel. Does not this verse by the apostle John strongly suggest that not all truth is revealed by God for faith and practice are consigned to us in the canonical scriptures.
Speaker 1:A closer reading suggests nothing of the sort. The apostle John concludes his account of the public ministry, death, resurrection and restoration of his disciples by simply stating that it would be impossible to exhaustively catalog the life of Jesus. John hyperbolizes the intent to do so by saying quote, if they were written 1 by 1, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Along these lines one astute commentator observes that since John started his gospel by asserting that all things were made by him and it would be futile to catalog all the things in creation, so at the end of the gospel the apostle asserts that the world could not contain the books needed to catalog every aspect of the life of Christ. Great literary bookends.
Speaker 1:Not bad for an illiterate fisherman such as John. This prompts the question. Are we missing anything necessary for faith and practice that an exhaustive account of the life of Jesus would grant us that we don't currently possess in John's gospel or any other gospel? Is that really the conclusion we should responsibly and rationally reach? John Gill provides comfort here.
Speaker 1:He says, quote, the Holy Ghost has not thought fit to lay such a burden on men as to read such numbers of volumes, but as reduced them to a compendium which may be read with ease, delight and pleasure and which is abundantly sufficient to attest to the truth of Christ's incarnation, miracles, doctrines, obedience, sufferings, death, resurrection, ascension, session at God's right hand and the whole of Christianity and all that pertains to it or whatever is necessary to be known for the salvation of men, close quote. To put it succinctly then, the knowledge of the person and work of Christ or faith and practice seem to be securely and sufficiently consigned to us in the canonical scriptures without the need for extra biblical revelation. Such is the sovereignty of the Holy Spirit. Now a strange strategy to support option 2 that not all truths revealed by God for faith and practice are consigned in the canonical scriptures alone is to juxtapose inscripturation with unscripturated oral teachings or traditions preserved and approved by the church universal. It is strange because it pits the will of the holy apostles and the prophets against the holy spirit.
Speaker 1:Can that approach be fruitful for the faithful? Consider second John verse 12. Quote, having many things to write to you I did not wish to do so with paper and ink. But I hope to come to you to speak face to face that our joy may be full. Close quote.
Speaker 1:Here proponents of option 2 highlight the apostle John's assertion that there were many unwritten things he wants to share with a group of Christians. But that he doesn't want to do so with paper and ink but face to face. Do we not see in this portion of scripture that the bible itself testifies that it does not contain everything necessary for faith and practice? What are the reasons to suppose that the many things to write to you were not put down on paper and ink and as such constituted extra canonical special revelation? What's more why is anyone to suppose that speaking face to face as the apostle says he desires to do will constitute additional and further divine truths of special revelation for faith and practice.
Speaker 1:There is after all contextual reasons to come to the contrary conclusion. Consider verses 56 of the same epistle. Quote, and now I plead with you, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment to you, but that which we have had from the beginning that we love one another. Verse 6. This is love that we walk according to his commandments.
Speaker 1:This is the commandment that as you have heard from the beginning, you should walk in it. Read what the apostle both affirms and denies. John the beloved disciple affirms not some unwritten extracanonical oral tradition from which God's people are to draw instructions for faith and practice. John's epistle echoes John's gospel wherein he records Jesus will for his disciples in perpetuity, namely love. He denies that he is pointing his readers to a new commandment As we have observed and concluded with Gil before concerning possessing all necessary and sufficient knowledge of the person and work of the Lord Jesus in the scriptures alone.
Speaker 1:So here we conclude that this portion of scripture succinctly commands the canonical scriptures as the necessary and sufficient source of special revelation for faith and practice. But is it not obstinate to consign all divinely revealed truths for the faith and practice of God's people to the canonical scriptures? After all, let's leave the apostle John to the side and consider the apostle Paul. He clearly and unambiguously commended to all the faithful the distinct yet equal role of extra canonical unwritten traditions that warrant our faith and obedience. 2nd Thessalonians 2:15 says, therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught whether by word or our epistle.
Speaker 1:Surely, this verse is irrefutable evidence that can be adduced in favor of option 2. Is that a judicious and rational reading of scripture? A right reading of scripture in this passage will have to respect context. Firstly, as a wise person once said, whenever you see a therefore you must find out what it's there for. This conjunctive adverb is a bridge between the previously expressed thought of being shaken in mind concerning the day of Christ's return in verses 2 and following and the exhortation to stand fast in verse 15.
Speaker 1:This underscores the occasional yet concrete nature of this epistle to set the record straight concerning the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. Chapter 2 verses 12. This in turn highlights that they received false information whether forged apostolic letter or unauthorized preaching stating that Christ the Lord had returned. This false information shook their faith. So then the contrast being set up is between true information and false information.
Speaker 1:Not between inscripturated truths divinely revealed and unwritten extracanonical truths distinct from scripture. What then are the traditions referred to in 2nd Thessalonians 2 15? Since the apostle Paul commands them and exhorts them to stand firm and hold the traditions which they were taught whether by word or epistle, It is reasonable and judicious to conclude that traditions here denote previously known and accepted true information. These traditions were truths of the gospel of salvation or the doctrine of Christ's second coming. Both of which are explicitly mentioned in the context of chapter 2 and were sufficient to remedy their shakenness of mind.
Speaker 1:So we have here both facets of divinely revealed truths in the text of scripture. Things regarding faith, the gospel of salvation, or the doctrine of Christ's second coming, and practice standing fast standing firm in true information. There is nothing in this passage that suggests a permanent and parallel set of unwritten extra canonical apostolic teachings that constitute divinely revealed truths for God's people necessary or sufficient for their faith and practice. So far option 2 seems to be not only unwarranted, but contradicted by the testimony of scripture. Perhaps option 2 is even contradicted by the testimony of the Lord Jesus himself.
Speaker 1:Consider John 5 verses 38 and 39. In a confrontation with the Jewish religious leaders in Jerusalem, Jesus admonishes and rebukes them for not profiting from God's word. How specifically were they or anyone claiming to be God's people to profit from God's word? Verse 38 answers, 1, by having his word abide in them, and 2, by believing it. Verse 39 makes it explicit.
Speaker 1:The father's word denotes and consists of the scriptures which the Jewish leaders searched but without profit. Why? Because although they searched the scriptures in hope of obtaining eternal life. They missed the one promised in various ways to be the giver of life himself, Jesus. They did not search unwritten extracanonical truths not preserved and contained in the scriptures of the Old Testament.
Speaker 1:Even at this point of redemptive history they were accountable to the testimony of the canon they had available to them to inform them concerning all matters of faith and practice. It is one thing to be in darkness because of ignorance. It is less excusable to be in darkness in the presence of light because your eyes are closed in unbelief. The Lord Jesus said, but you are not willing to come to me that you may have life. Many such cases exist today.
Speaker 1:Now all these considerations seem to be leading us to certain conclusions regarding what is known as the rule of faith and what constitutes it. You see, what we started off this episode with was basically two options for defining the rule of faith for Christians. I repeat, either the scriptures countenance themselves alone as the rule of faith or they do not. Either 1, all truths revealed by god for faith and practice are consigned in the canonical scriptures alone. Or 2, not all truths revealed by god For faith and practice are consigned in the canonical scriptures alone.
Speaker 1:The bible itself, as we have adduced some passages, might superficially be read to support option 2. We may even suggest an argument like the following in option 2's favor. Premise 1, the apostles command that what they taught be preserved. Premise 2. The Bible does not contain all that the apostles taught and preserved.
Speaker 1:Conclusion. Therefore, the Bible does not constitute the full repository of all truths revealed by God for faith and practice. Now we could conduct any number of thought experiments to challenge the premises or the conclusion. For example, if the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises, does that further imply that a body of unwritten parallel truths alongside of scripture and for perpetuity will complete the repository of divine truths for faith and practice? Concerning premise 2, does not having everything preserved in scripture that the apostles taught mean that the scriptures are insufficient as a rule of faith?
Speaker 1:It would be worth lingering over the concept and outworking of tradition according to the bible. Do protestants throw out the rule of faith baby with a traditional bathwater? What definition of tradition should be embraced if any? Should the correct conception be capital t tradition which is accepted and approved unwritten truths that run-in perpetuity and parallel to sacred scripture? As we have seen in taking a closer look at various bible verses, capital t tradition seems to be strongly unwarranted.
Speaker 1:Puritan William Perkins gives a helpful and worthwhile definition of lowercase t tradition that fits and accounts for the biblical data. He defines tradition, lowercase t, as doctrines delivered from hand to hand either by word-of-mouth or by writing beside the written word of god. He even goes so far to say quite clearly and unequivocally, quote, we, that is protestants, hold that the very word of God has been delivered by tradition, close quote. Does he thereby doing sell the reformed and protestant sola scriptura farm? What does the godfather of puritanism refer to?
Speaker 1:Simply put, Perkins recognizes how the drama of redemption unfolded according to the testimony of scripture itself. Let me share the following bullet type points. He observes God revealed his will to Adam by word-of-mouth. God renewed his will to the patriarchs by word-of-mouth dreams, etcetera. God revealed his will to others throughout the 2000 year history until Moses.
Speaker 1:Throughout the span of that time, men worshiped God and held the articles of faith by tradition. The history of the New Testament went from hand to hand by tradition until penned by the apostles or others approved by them. Moreover, Perkins recognized the prophets, the Lord Jesus, and his apostles spoke and did many good things and true which were not written in scripture but came to us or to our ancestors only by tradition. Aren't these observations and considerations part of the gist of what the author of Hebrews 1 was getting at? The scriptural data then seems to lead us to an acceptance not of capital t tradition, but to lowercase t tradition.
Speaker 1:This should remind all reformed believers of a similar situation regarding free will. It is commonly thought that reformed believers reject free will. This is verifiably untrue. In fact, free will is a doctrine that has achieved confessional status. To the disappointment and chagrin of non reformed believers, once they read the confessional statements on free will, they find a definition of free will quite distinct from either a popularly or philosophically conceived libertarian free will.
Speaker 1:It doesn't dawn on libertarian free will believers that their conception of will, a, isn't the only possible one and b, cannot account for all the biblical data. Similarly, those who embrace capital t tradition find it hard to imagine the need for a lowercase t tradition to be possible much less warranted by the biblical data. So Perkins not only speaks for Puritans, not only for the Reformed, but for all Protestants when he embraces tradition. But the biblical data warrants only lowercase t, tradition. In order to inoculate believers against any false or ill conceived notions of tradition, let's consider briefly some more passages of scripture.
Speaker 1:2nd Timothy 3:8 mentions the names of Janes and Jambres as the magicians who opposed Moses in Egypt even though Exodus doesn't name them. Hebrews 12/21 says that when Moses saw such a terrible sight at Mount Sinai that he exclaimed, I am exceedingly afraid and trembling. This isn't recorded in Exodus either. In Jude's epistle, it says that Michael, the archangel, contending with the devil when he disputed about the body of Moses, even though such an incident isn't found in the Pentateuch or the rest of the old testament. Incidentally, speaking of Moses, if I remember correctly, the author of Hebrews states in passing that he was hidden for the first three months of his life by his parents in faith, among other reasons, because they saw he was a beautiful child.
Speaker 1:This motivation was not recorded in Exodus either, if memory serves me correctly. And so these passages exemplify not a capital t tradition, but a lowercase t tradition. Ask yourself, dear listener, if the aforementioned texts of scripture that exemplify the lowercase t tradition are to lead us conclusively to option 1 or option 2 mentioned at the start of this episode. Option 1, all truths revealed by God for faith and practice are consigned in the canonical scriptures alone. Or option 2, not all truths revealed by God for faith and practice are consigned in the canonical scriptures alone.
Speaker 1:It would seem that any truths arriving to us by lowercase t tradition do not rise to the level of a necessary article of faith and practice without which the truths found in scripture alone would be insufficient for our salvation. Moreover, it would seem that the scripture alone implicitly and explicitly holds itself up as the only sufficient rule of faith and practice. Let's conclude this episode with one last example from acts and one argument from the apostle Paul. Far from exemplifying a parallel and perpetual extracanonical rule of faith in capital t, tradition, acts 15 exemplifies an application of scripture occasioned by a teaching which arose when certain men taught contrary to scripture. Acts chapter 15 verse 1 says, quote, and certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.
Speaker 1:Verses 2 through 4 say the following. Therefore, when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and dispute with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders about this question. For being sent on their way by the church they passed through Phoenicia and Samaria describing the conversion of the Gentiles and they caused great joy to all the brethren and when they had come to Jerusalem they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders. And they reported all things that God had done with them. In response to those certain men, the Apostle Paul, however, reports that his ministry both in content and results diametrically opposed the necessity of circumcision for salvation.
Speaker 1:Our passage says, Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and dispute with these men teaching thus. The Gentiles after all were being converted, and this was a work of god. Verse 5. But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up saying, it is necessary to circumcise them and to command them to keep the law of Moses. Once in Jerusalem, with the apostles present, there were believers with a Pharisee background who maintained publicly the necessity to circumcise and keep the law of Moses.
Speaker 1:And so the problem was set up. It arose from without, and it festered from within. The astute reader of scripture may legitimately ask themselves, was circumcision and obedience to the law of Moses ever a necessary requirement of salvation given by God? Also, did the plurality of this group of Pharisees have more weight than one former Pharisee, Paul? After all, wasn't Paul a Hebrew of the Hebrews and a Pharisee of the Pharisees?
Speaker 1:This disagreement between Paul and the sect of Pharisees within the early church was fundamentally not a disagreement solely of practice but of principle. For this division, a council was set up to address the issue. What was the bar to which the council's decision conformed to? Was the council self consciously self authenticating? Let's read verse 6.
Speaker 1:Now the apostles and elders came together to consider the matter. Verse 7. And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them, men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. According to the scripture, both sides had a fair hearing. Verse 7 states that there was much dispute.
Speaker 1:But Peter acknowledged Paul's position contrary to the sect of the Pharisees. The ongoing history of redemption they were all living through had to recognize that gentiles were being saved apart from circumcision and obedience to the law of Moses. Peter continues in verse 8. So God who knows the heart acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us. This single consideration given publicly by Peter constitutes a defeater to the pharasical position that circumcision and obedience to the law of Moses was necessary for salvation.
Speaker 1:Verse 9 drives the point home, and made no distinction between us and them purifying their hearts by faith. How does Peter cash out this defeater point? Verse 10. Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear. Peter teases out the implication of the sect of the Pharisees by labeling the requirement of circumcision and obedience to the law of Moses as a form of testing god.
Speaker 1:Why? Because this requirement constitutes a putting on a yoke on the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear. Was this yoke ever a legitimate scripturally revealed requirement of salvation? Was it ever even illegitimately lowercase t, tradition? We must answer both questions in the negative.
Speaker 1:How could it have become the latter if it never in any sense was the former? Don't look now, but in verse 11, we find Peter's confession of faith. He says, but we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we shall be saved in the same manner as they. Verse 12 continues with Paul breaking the silence of the multitude gathered and compliments Peter's confession with corroborating evidence. Verse 12.
Speaker 1:Then all the multitude kept silent and listened to Barnabas and Paul declaring how many miracles and wonders God had worked through them among the Gentiles. James concurs with Peter's confession and appeals to scripture. Let's read verses 13 and following. And after they had become silent, James answered saying, men and brethren, listen to me. Simon has declared how god at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for his name.
Speaker 1:And with this, the words of the prophets agree just as it is written. Verse 16. After this, I will return and will rebuild the tabernacle of David which has fallen down. I will rebuild its ruins and I will set it up, verse 17. So that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, even all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord who does all these things.
Speaker 1:James' citation of scripture from the old testament was an apt acknowledgment of gentile salvation followed up by an apt application for them contextualized to what they were facing in their cultures. The Jerusalem decree handed down by James stated 1 in verse 19, we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to god. The elliptical statement obviously has in view what the whole discussion was about. Namely, to trouble the Gentiles with requiring circumcision and obedience to the Mosaic law for salvation. The second point the Jerusalem decree handed down by James stated is 2 verse 20.
Speaker 1:To abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood. Now if we take a step back, we can discern a familiar rubric of sorts. But it isn't an arbitrary and capricious rubric imposed by the Jerusalem Council or the apostles. The rubric is simply a doctrine and some basic uses or applications of the doctrine for pastoral well-being. The passage of Amos cited by James was representative of an apt portion of scripture to which the Jerusalem council set as the bar in coming to a final decision.
Speaker 1:In this sense, the Jerusalem council decree is in principle more akin to one of the sermons in acts than it is to an example of a distinct rule of faith outside of scripture. Years later, dear listener, one of the attendees to that Jerusalem council, the apostle Paul himself, was used by the Holy Spirit to pen an argument against the position that not all truths revealed by god for faith and practice are consigned in the canonical scriptures alone. 2nd Timothy 3 16 is rightly read by Puritan William Perkins to argue the following. That which is profitable to inform someone from the pastor in the pulpit to the person in the pew in the issues of faith and practice which include the all encompassing spectrum of doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness is sufficient as a rule of faith without non scriptural capital t traditions or extracanonical divine revelations. The scriptures are the exclusive material that profitably serve to inform all men as a rule of faith.
Speaker 1:Therefore, the scriptures are themselves sufficient as a rule of faith and any claim to a perpetual and parallel distinct set of divine revelations including but not limited to unwritten traditions, capital t, are simply superfluous. Thank you for joining us at Urban Buritano. We look forward to catching up with you on your next stop along your journey to the city prepared by God for all true believers.