Reeves Gospel People

A Call for Evangelical Integrity
1. Auflage 2022
ISBN: 978-1-4335-7296-8
Verlag: Crossway
Format: EPUB
Kopierschutz: 0 - No protection

E-Book, Englisch, 144 Seiten

A Biblical Case for the Importance and Goodness of Being 'Evangelical' The term evangelical is often poorly defined and frequently comes with cultural and political baggage. As the label has become more controversial, many Christians have begun to wonder if they should abandon it altogether. Michael Reeves argues from a global, scriptural, and historical perspective that, while it's not necessary to discard the label altogether, Christians must return to the root of the term-the evangel, or 'gospel'-in order to understand what it truly means. He identifies the theology of evangelicalism and its essential doctrine-the Father's revelation in the Bible, the Son's redemption in the gospel, and the Spirit's regeneration of the heart-calling believers to stand with integrity as people of the gospel. - A Biblical and Theological Explanation of Evangelicalism: Rooted in Scripture and the writings of figures throughout church history - Globally-Minded: Explores evangelical theology and distinctives outside of narrow cultural definitions - Brief and Accessible: Written for both lay people and church leaders

Michael Reeves (PhD, King's College, London) is president and professor of theology at Union School of Theology in Bridgend and Oxford, United Kingdom. He is the author of several books, including Delighting in the Trinity; Rejoice and Tremble; and Gospel People.

Autoren/Hrsg.

Reeves, Michael

Leseproben

2

Revelation from the Father

“The first leading feature in Evangelical Religion,” wrote J. C. Ryle, “is the absolute supremacy it assigns to Holy Scripture, as the only rule of faith and practice, the only test of truth, the only judge of controversy.”1 Why so? Quite simply, because that is what Jesus taught about how we can know the truth.

The Supremacy of Scripture

Here is Mark’s account of Jesus’s controversy with the Pharisees over Scripture and its authority:

Now when the Pharisees gathered to him, with some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem, they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands properly, holding to the tradition of the elders, and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches.) And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?” And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written,

“‘This people honors me with their lips,

but their heart is far from me;

in vain do they worship me,

teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’

You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.”

And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ But you say, ‘If a man tells his father or his mother, “Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban”’ (that is, given to God)—then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.” (Mark 7:1–13)

The dispute arose over a simple matter of handwashing. To be clear, this was not about personal hygiene. The Pharisees and scribes did not merely dislike grubby paws at the dinner table. Their concern was a religious one, that they might be “defiled” (v. 2). They therefore insisted on a ceremonial handwashing, according “to the tradition of the elders” (v. 3). Their objection to Jesus was that his disciples did not walk according to this tradition (v. 5). To this, Jesus replied, “You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men” (v. 8). Clearly, for Jesus, whereas Scripture is of God, tradition is of men, and it is vain hypocrisy to equate “the commandments of men” with the “doctrines” of God (v. 7).

Next, Jesus goes on to elaborate on his view of Scripture and tradition by challenging the teaching of the Pharisees about Corban. “Corban” is a Hebrew word for a gift given to God, and evidently the tradition had grown up that when something had been intended as Corban, it could never then be used for anything else. Jesus imagines the case of a young man who has set aside some money as Corban, only then to find that his aged parents were in need. In that situation, Jesus argues, the Pharisees would “no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother” (v. 12) because of that tradition concerning Corban. But in so doing, they would make the young man violate Moses’s commands: “Honor your father and your mother” (Ex. 20:12) and “Whoever curses his father or his mother shall be put to death” (Ex. 21:17). Thus, they sinfully reject the word of God to uphold the tradition of the elders. In fact, by not permitting something that Scripture commanded, they had set themselves up over the word of God as higher authorities.

Jesus’s conviction is plain: Scripture is divine in origin, even when Moses spoke the words. What “Moses said” (v. 10) is “the word of God” (v. 13). As such, Scripture’s authority is supreme. Any human reasoning or tradition (which is human in origin) is subordinate to Scripture, and we must reject any thinking or tradition that is in conflict with Scripture, and not vice versa. The word of God and the words of mere creatures are not and cannot be equal authorities. Thus, when the divine word conflicts with human words, it is Scripture that must be heeded and tradition that must be rejected. As Jesus demonstrated every time he asked, “Have you not read in the Scriptures?” or, “What is written in the Law?” he believed that Scripture is the supreme, sufficient authority that must overrule all our words and thoughts.

Again and again since the close of the New Testament, the church has reasserted this essential evangelical principle of the supremacy of Scripture alone. In the second century, Irenaeus put the supremacy of Scripture at the heart of his response to gnosticism. Scripture, he asserted, is “the ground and pillar of our faith.”2 The prime mistake of the gnostics, he argued, was to read Scripture through nonscriptural principles, forcing it to fit into an alien mold. Scripture cannot be so read, according to Irenaeus; rather, Scripture can be understood only by Scripture. No other knowledge, theological system, or oral tradition can accurately mediate the true meaning of Scripture.3 Nearly two centuries later, Athanasius wrote of the canonical books of Scripture: “These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these.”4 A generation later, Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335–c. 395) would yet again articulate the same belief in the supremacy of Scripture:

We do not think that it is right to make their prevailing custom the law and rule of sound doctrine. For if custom is to avail for proof of soundness, we too, surely, may advance our prevailing custom; and if they reject this, we are surely not bound to follow theirs. Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.5

And another generation after that, Augustine would write, “For the reasonings of any men whatsoever, even though they be Catholics, and of high reputation, are not to be treated by us in the same way as the canonical Scriptures are treated.”6

It was a millennium later, though, at the time of the Reformation, that the matter of the supremacy of Scripture would come into particularly sharp relief. It would do so because Martin Luther found himself challenging a church in Rome that did affirm Scripture’s authority but did not believe that Scripture is the supreme authority. Rome’s position was spelled out by Sylvester Prierias, the first theologian appointed by the pope to debate Luther: “He who does not accept the doctrine of the Church of Rome and pontiff of Rome as an infallible rule of faith, from which the Holy Scriptures, too, draw their strength and authority, is a heretic.”7 And still today, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that “the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.”8

However, the insistence of Luther’s interlocutors on the authority of the pope only seemed to clarify the issue in the Reformer’s mind. He came to see that if the Roman Catholic Church held the pope to be an authority equal to or even above Scripture, she could never be reformed by God’s word. The pope’s word would always trump God’s. Luther became increasingly clear that the pope was abusing Scripture, and that a man could never be an authority higher than God’s word. Any man who puts himself above God’s word is putting himself in the place of God. After all, the church has not brought the word of God into being; it is God’s word that has brought the church into being, just as God’s word first brought creation into being. God’s word comes first.

In fact, without this principle of the supremacy of Scripture there would have been no Reformation. It is the first principle that distinguishes Luther (the first Reformer) from Erasmus, the scholar who made the Greek New Testament widely available, but who is never counted as a Reformer. Erasmus had a clear regard for Scripture, but he would never have used Scripture to bring about any serious reformation. For him, the Scriptures held no clear governing authority and so no ability to challenge and to change substantially. The Bible was not supreme for Erasmus, “and so its message could be tailored, squeezed and adjusted to fit his own vision of what Christianity was.” To “achieve any substantial reformation, it took Luther’s...