All Saving Knowledge, Faith and Obedience
The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith and obedience,...This first line of the confession is so strategic to the rest of the confession. It places Scripture at at the forefront and excludes all else, giving the firmest expression to those who take up and read that nothing else, including this confession, ought ever take authority in one's life over Scripture. Perhaps something like the confession can serve as a vice regent, but never as king.
What I am uncertain of in this section is related to the grammar. Is "faith and obedience" an elaboration of "all saving knowledge" or are they 3 separate descriptions of the rule? The location of the commas before and after "faith and obedience" in the confession makes me think it is an elaboration of "all saving knowledge," but then again, it is older English grammar which often contained much larger sentences than used in modern English, and due to that seemingly used punctuation differently. But perhaps not, I'm merely confessing my ignorance in this, so if someone knows better, please tell me. What further makes this an issue is that the above quotation of the confession (which lacks the comma) comes from Sam Waldron's exposition of the 1689. But the publication of the 1689 from Solid Ground and the android app from Puritan Soft both place a comma between faith and obedience. If the comma is supposed to be there, then the distinctions I discuss below are pointless, because grammatically the only option is what I conclude at the end of this. But if the comma isn't there originally, then the discussion below has application. (Another interesting distinction grammatically is that the Solid Ground publication places a period after obedience, whereas Waldron's exposition and the Puritan Soft app place a comma, but there isn't anything to discuss regarding this difference.)
Why does this distinction matter? Well, to a degree it doesn't, because the result is still knowledge of the gospel, faith in it, and obedience to it. But I think there could be some interesting conclusions drawn, or at least left open as options, from the different distinctions. If "all saving knowledge" is separate from "faith & obedience", it now has to be defined differently. Perhaps "all saving knowledge" could be defined as the facts of the gospel. This makes "knowledge" an impersonal reality, just like any other piece of history, from which one must apply "faith & obedience." In Scripture (and in philosophy in my opinion), "knowing" something is far weightier of a concept than simply regurgitating bare bone facts. To know something in Scripture often carries with it a sense of intimacy. For example, one person may know Johnny Bench via his baseball card, understanding all of his stats and figures, but another person, like his wife or family, "know" Johnny personally, being able to tell you who he is (though they may not be able to tell you all of the stats and figures). This is where I believe making "faith & obedience" an elaboration of "all saving knowledge" is more desirable. As an elaboration, saving knowledge is now the subjective response to the objective reality. The distinction is subtle, but it is this: in the first option, knowledge is still considered saving apart from faith and obedience, but in the second option, the knowledge of the facts is not "saving knowledge" unless it is displayed through faith & obedience. Thus, in the first option, many people might think they are saved because they can elucidate the Gospel, and possibly even the fine intricacies of theology, but it is nothing more than "head knowledge," but the second option gets to the heart of the matter.
However, making faith and obedience as an elaboration also brings with it some problems. Scripture is no longer considered the authority, but one's subjective experience to the revelation is now the authoritative rule. Specifically. the issues between the Reformed understanding of Scripture and the Neo-orthodox understanding of Scripture come to the forefront. In the Reformed understanding, the Holy Bible is the inerrant word of God, period. In Neo-orthodoxy, the Bible only becomes the Word of God as the Holy Spirit illuminates your mind to it. That opens the door to a whole host of problems, and ultimately undermining the authority of Scripture. Solid hermeneutics are eventually tossed aside to one's subjective application of a passage (like in the extreme case of a woman who applied the passage "put on the new man" to mean she was to divorce her husband and marry the man with whom she was having an affair). One's subjectivity is the rule, and not Scripture as defined in this confession, when you take this approach, and "all saving knowledge" becomes your subjective experience. And your subjective experience might not be someone else's, thus you no longer have an objective reality to set as definitive to "all saving knowledge." At this point, Scripture is merely a vehicle that has no objective meaning for all mankind, but it's meaning is defined by the reader, and is no longer a true standard, rule, or canon.
The Neo-orthodox approach was attempting to rekindle the Scriptures in the hearts of people, because dogmatics of the Reformed had become cold in people's hearts. That was a noble cause, and for it is the reason why the above interpretation was desirable. In the end though, they applied secular existentialism to hermeneutics, and lost the scriptural prescription in the process. When you are sick, and the doctor writes you a prescription, that Rx is what will permit you to acquire the medicine you need. All of that is external to you, and not some subjectively experienced thing. As the Great Physician, our Lord has diagnosed us and written us a prescription, that's the objective Truth of the Law & Gospel, or "all saving knowledge." Subjectively, we still need to have the script filled, believing that the Doctor has diagnosed us and is medicating us correctly, and obey the doctor's instructions so we don't overdose or nullify the effects of the prescription That's "faith and obedience."
Why does this distinction matter? Well, to a degree it doesn't, because the result is still knowledge of the gospel, faith in it, and obedience to it. But I think there could be some interesting conclusions drawn, or at least left open as options, from the different distinctions. If "all saving knowledge" is separate from "faith & obedience", it now has to be defined differently. Perhaps "all saving knowledge" could be defined as the facts of the gospel. This makes "knowledge" an impersonal reality, just like any other piece of history, from which one must apply "faith & obedience." In Scripture (and in philosophy in my opinion), "knowing" something is far weightier of a concept than simply regurgitating bare bone facts. To know something in Scripture often carries with it a sense of intimacy. For example, one person may know Johnny Bench via his baseball card, understanding all of his stats and figures, but another person, like his wife or family, "know" Johnny personally, being able to tell you who he is (though they may not be able to tell you all of the stats and figures). This is where I believe making "faith & obedience" an elaboration of "all saving knowledge" is more desirable. As an elaboration, saving knowledge is now the subjective response to the objective reality. The distinction is subtle, but it is this: in the first option, knowledge is still considered saving apart from faith and obedience, but in the second option, the knowledge of the facts is not "saving knowledge" unless it is displayed through faith & obedience. Thus, in the first option, many people might think they are saved because they can elucidate the Gospel, and possibly even the fine intricacies of theology, but it is nothing more than "head knowledge," but the second option gets to the heart of the matter.
However, making faith and obedience as an elaboration also brings with it some problems. Scripture is no longer considered the authority, but one's subjective experience to the revelation is now the authoritative rule. Specifically. the issues between the Reformed understanding of Scripture and the Neo-orthodox understanding of Scripture come to the forefront. In the Reformed understanding, the Holy Bible is the inerrant word of God, period. In Neo-orthodoxy, the Bible only becomes the Word of God as the Holy Spirit illuminates your mind to it. That opens the door to a whole host of problems, and ultimately undermining the authority of Scripture. Solid hermeneutics are eventually tossed aside to one's subjective application of a passage (like in the extreme case of a woman who applied the passage "put on the new man" to mean she was to divorce her husband and marry the man with whom she was having an affair). One's subjectivity is the rule, and not Scripture as defined in this confession, when you take this approach, and "all saving knowledge" becomes your subjective experience. And your subjective experience might not be someone else's, thus you no longer have an objective reality to set as definitive to "all saving knowledge." At this point, Scripture is merely a vehicle that has no objective meaning for all mankind, but it's meaning is defined by the reader, and is no longer a true standard, rule, or canon.
The Neo-orthodox approach was attempting to rekindle the Scriptures in the hearts of people, because dogmatics of the Reformed had become cold in people's hearts. That was a noble cause, and for it is the reason why the above interpretation was desirable. In the end though, they applied secular existentialism to hermeneutics, and lost the scriptural prescription in the process. When you are sick, and the doctor writes you a prescription, that Rx is what will permit you to acquire the medicine you need. All of that is external to you, and not some subjectively experienced thing. As the Great Physician, our Lord has diagnosed us and written us a prescription, that's the objective Truth of the Law & Gospel, or "all saving knowledge." Subjectively, we still need to have the script filled, believing that the Doctor has diagnosed us and is medicating us correctly, and obey the doctor's instructions so we don't overdose or nullify the effects of the prescription That's "faith and obedience."
Comments
Post a Comment