LaRosa Johnson {dot} com

A few weeks ago at Austin Bible Church we finished our latest module of systematic theology, which consisted of reading through Lewis Sperry Chafer’s volume on Ecclesiology. Overall, it was a very interesting read, although the final chapter was quite a bit anticlimactic in my opinion. Even though the final chapter didn’t provide the conclusion that I was hoping for, Chafer did offer one nugget that I felt was worth sharing here on this blog. In his conclusion he writes the following (emphasis is my own):

In bringing to its end this discussion respecting the entire field of Ecclesiology, it may be restated that a true development of this great theme, if Biblical, must be built on the second Pauline revelation. As asserted at the opening of this treatise on Ecclesiology, the Reformation regained the truth of the first Pauline revelation, namely, justification by faith alone, but did not go on to restore the truth contained in the second revelation. It is altogether possible that the problems attending the restoration of the first revelation, being so far-reaching and revolutionary as a reaction from the Romish perversions of truth, were all that could be undertaken at one time or by one generation. Later studies of the New Testament developed the almost limitless theme of the second revelation. Unfortunately, however, theologians were unprepared to receive any added truth beyond that gained in the Reformation, and Protestant theology has, by a misguided loyalty to orthodoxy, never received the truth contained in the second revelation. It has been assumed that this added truth is dangerous if it was not included in the Reformation attainments and that it must be in conflict with those attainments. Early in the history of Protestantism there were individual theologians who caught the first gleams of truth contained in the second revelation, and an ever increasing light has fallen on this body of truth until today there is a great company of students of doctrine who hold and teach, along with the first revelation, the clear divine unfoldings respecting the Church which is Christ’s Body. Nevertheless, orthodox Reformed theology persists in its original, isolated, and exclusive recognition of the first revelation, and continues to reject and condemn as intrusive and disruptive the great certified findings of those theologians who have given their years of study to the second revelation. So persistent is this self-imposed loyalty to a limited Reformation theology that a complete disruption of orthodox forces has already set in. This is not a controversy between heterodox and orthodox contenders; it is wholly within the orthodox ranks and is properly analyzed as a dissension between those who without worthy investigation of all that is involved restrict their theology to the first Pauline revelation and those who, contending as earnestly for the first revelation, have, with great study and research, gone on to the understanding of the second revelation. The second revelation respecting the Church, if pursued worthily, leads with inexorable logic to such dispensational and general Biblical distinctions as have been set forth in this treatise. An attack against these distinctions cannot be sustained by recourse to the beliefs of Reformers and early theologians; for such is an assumption that there is no progress to be made in the knowledge of truth, that the very light which fell on the Reformers by which they emerged from Romish darkness could not fall upon any others in subsequent years to lead them into wider fields of the understanding of God’s inexhaustible revelation. There is an inherent weakness disclosed in this attitude. It tends to shirk all responsibility in the direction of advancement in the truth and to deify the writings of the Reformers or the writings of the founders of a sect, apparently forgetting for the moment that these worthy scholars made no claim to inspiration nor did they intend to set up a barrier past which no further investigation in the truth should advance. It is no disrespect to Reformers or church fathers to maintain an attitude of open-mindedness in the direction of new understanding of truth which was not accorded to men of earlier generations. No science would be benefited by such slavish assent to supposedly implacable teachers of the past.
Chafer, L. S. (1993). Vol. 4: Systematic theology (249–250). Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications.

To summarize the quote, Chafer is stating that one of the problems persistent in the faith among Christians & theologians is the tendency to stop at a given era of Christian history and claiming only that progression of doctrinal understanding is orthodox. The problem with this is that it has a very natural tendency to flavor one’s understanding of Scripture and the systematizing of theology that comes along with it.

In practice, what does that look like? Let’s say you stopped with the period right before the Reformers set straight the doctrine of soteriology. If your growth & understanding stopped there, you’d likely be a Roman Catholic and all of your understanding would come from that point of view. The same is true if you stop with the Reformers like Luther or Calvin. Many people follow the Reformers, so what’s wrong with that? Honestly, nothing; I read and appreciate their works. The problem lies in the fact that their writings are not God-breathed & inspired, which means that it contains error and they didn’t get everything right. How so? Much like Chafer is saying in the above quote, the Reformers did great in claiming a proper soteriology, but their understanding of ecclesiology was still very Romish. Yet, if you look at the Church history that followed the Reformation, it was this doctrine that began to get unraveled and understood, much in the same way that soteriology was restored in the Reformation.

It’s not a new idea (see James Orr’s The Progress of Dogma), but when you look at Church history as a whole, it’s very interesting to note how closely it lines up with the table of contents for most systematic theologies. In looking at the early church fathers, a lot of what they wrote about and discussed was the matter of canonicity and setting straight some of the core understanding of who God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) is, which align with bibliology and theology proper. As you move on you get the Reformers correcting soteriology, followed by the next era tackling ecclesiology, and so on.

Studying Church history makes it pretty obvious that our understanding of Scripture and theology has only expanded with time. Simply stated, we know a lot more now about the Bible and doctrine than previous generations did. What’s more, our current understanding didn’t come from thin air; instead, it was built upon the foundation that our forefathers laid before us. We recognize that Scripture is the source, we evaluate the teachings of those who came before us, accepting & keeping what they got right, and recognizing those areas where they didn’t fully develop some areas of teaching or just altogether missed the mark. This is how we grow and continue to progress in our understanding of Scripture. But, let’s be clear in understanding that I’m not saying that there is new revelation of Scripture (because the canon is closed), but our knowledge of what we do have in Scripture is growing. It’s much like science in many respects. We know & can do things now in science & medicine that couldn’t be done in times past, but only because of the foundation & study that was laid prior and subsequently building upon that foundation. The same is true of theology.

Admittedly, a lot of this requires an open mind. As a said above, if your understanding of Scripture stops at a certain era, then you will undoubtedly have your understanding flavored by that. I would dare say that this is the reason why different schools of theology constantly take issue with one another (i.e. covenant theology vs. dispensationalism).

I could say more, but I think the Chafer quote says it well enough. I’ll close by saying let’s have an open mind when studying the Scriptures and let’s not simply enslave ourselves to the understanding that we’re given by men who came before us. Let’s use them to lay the foundation and then let’s build upon it as we study to show ourselves approved and only holding to what we find true in Scripture. And most importantly, let’s walk in grace toward one another as we do this!

Last month I started the process of coming up with ideas for Trailblazin Ministries, and I came up with a few that I felt would really benefit those who visit the site. The problem? They required a big commitment on my end, a commitment that I couldn’t realistically give myself to. The biggest of the goals was to do a plan that would take the site’s visitors through the entirety of the Bible in two years, with daily lessons Monday through Friday.

I tossed the ideas back & forth in my mind constantly in the days leading up to the new year, all the way up until yesterday. It was at that time that I finally decided that I couldn’t do it. I already have a lot on my plate, and there’s no way that I could feasibly do all that I wanted to do without suffering in another area. Would my 1st Thessalonians study suffer? Would my time with family suffer? Would my training suffer? I realized that something was going to suffer if I went ahead with this plan; or, at the very least, I would get a month or two into this and end up quitting, which wouldn’t look good at all.

Now, I’m not committing myself to resolutions, but I do have plans for the new year. First and foremost, I want to read my Bible from Genesis to Revelation in this year. I personally don’t think it would be wise for me to have made it to the end of my training to be a pastor without first having read through the Bible at least once. I started a chronological reading plan back in November and already have a pretty good head start, so I look forward to seeing this one through. This is one of my biggest goals.

Next to that is being a better father & husband, which is my first ministry. I can’t possibly live up to my new position of deacon or a soon-to-be pastor if I can’t manage my household well. So, I want to try my hardest to have consistent family devotions (maybe at least 1-2x a week) and pray with Robin more. I also need to work harder at spending quality time with each child.

I also want to be more diligent in my ministry training at Austin Bible Church. I want to make sure that I’m learning Hebrew & Greek to the best of my ability, and learning all that I can in the ministry workshop courses. That also means being diligent in working through my 1st Thessalonians study so that I can be prepared to teach it to the congregation when the Lord allows us to meet in our new building.

Finally, I just want to continue doing what I’ve been doing with Trailblazin Ministries, even if it does remain small. I realize that what’s important right now is my training & I just have to keep TM running. Once my training is done, I’ll be better equipped and have the time to do more with the site, which will allow me to better reach the world at large with the truth of God’s Word.

Those are my goals for the year. They’re all realistic & obtainable. Nothing high & lofty, and stuff that I should be doing anyway. The best part of it all is that I don’t have to do it on my own, but I’ll have the help of God the Holy Spirit, who is able to accomplish all things. Amen.

I had Greek class tonight, and it was a lot of business as usual; but, I can feel that I’m really starting to pick up on stuff and have it make sense to me. Like tonight, I actually felt like I understood the material and was getting somewhere with it. I was even reading the Greek text with more ease than I had been. The best part was doing exercises and being able to answer some of the questions without even thinking, that felt good.

Overall, I’m still encouraged and taking it day by day. The Lord is blessing and I’m feeling better equipped to teach His word. But don’t stop praying for me, I still need all the prayer I can get.