On a popular level the baptist tradition may be that we have no tradition.  I find this unacceptable as a theologian and chruchman.  First, the church will be more able to avoid heresy if they understand church history and how previous generations of saints defended the gospel.  Second, I am fearful of becoming too contextualized.  Attempts to reduce the truth to the most basic elements or modify it to appeal to the new generation have usually ended in heresy.  Think of Immauel Kant, Fredrick Schleiermacher, Paul Tillich, and our modern day man John Shelby Spong and his work “why the church must change or die.”  These men hoped to save Christianity from absurdity by interpreting the truth differently, usually by reading the Scriptures through a philosophical grid borrowed from contemporary culture.  Third, I just do not think we should say anything new.  I hope to echo the Scriptures and if I come up with an interpretation that is novel I should repent of it. 

Now, am I able to come to an objective understanding of the Scirptures?  My postmodern friends say no–I agree partially, not because words lack meaning, but because I am wicked deep down and this effects the way I think.  (another topic to grapple with later)  I read the Scriptures believing they are completely clear and knowing the Spirit indwells me so that I am convicted according to God’s Word.  I read the Scriptures in a church so that I have other brothers who correct my wrong interpretations.  I interpret Scripture with an understanding of how the Fathers and saints through the history of the church have interpreted them so that I keep good company.  Every heresy is flirted with again in each generation and it is important to know how the previous brothers dealt with them so I can recognize them in their new garb and expose them.   

Posted in Church History |