We had three good sessions at the Westminster Conference at our new venue in Islington, North London today. I chaired the first session when Stephane Simonnin gave an excellent paper on The Council of Nicaea (325 AD) A brief historical overview.
In the paper, Stephane did three things - set out the context for the council and explained why it was convened; gave an overview of the council itself – its proceedings and the creed that it produced; outlined the achievements and limits of the creed.
Finally, he drew out two practical applications for today -
1. We need to recognise the need for extra biblical words to define Scriptural doctrines. Athanasius was very clear on this point in his important work on the defence of the Nicene definition (De Decretis). He narrates the debates at the council and shows clearly why the Nicene fathers were forced to use a non-Scriptural term (ὁμοουσιον) to bring to light their opponents’ unscriptural teaching: "The council Fathers wished … to use the acknowledged words of Scripture... But Eusebius and his fellows, led by their incurable heresy, understood the phrase “from God” as belonging to us, as if the word of God differed nothing from us, because it is written “there is one god from whom are all things etc.” The Fathers, perceiving how cunning they were, had no choice but to express more distinctly the sense of the words “from God”. Accordingly, they wrote “from the essence of God” in order that “from God” might not be considered common and equal in the sons and in beings originate..."
The challenge that the Council Fathers faced is perfectly summed up by R. P. C. Hanson in his classic work: “The theologians of the Christian Church slowly realized that the deepest questions which face Christianity cannot be answered in purely biblical language, because the questions are about the meaning of biblical language itself.”
It is clear that the church fathers used terms of Greek philosophy to construct a coherent doctrine of the Trinity. These concepts were put to good use to defend and explain the data of Scripture. This is something that modern evangelicals may be uncomfortable with but this is a reality.
2. The value of creeds and confessions and the danger of “biblicism”. This is particularly relevant today as many in the reformed world are encouraging us to critically reappropriate pre-modern exegesis and church creeds. “Sola Scriptura” means that Scripture is the supreme authority, not that it is the only authority. This is an important reminder for evangelical Christians today. Those who argue that they want “no creed but the Bible” fail to recognise that what unites the church, and what unites a local church, is not Scripture but the way Scripture is understood; hence the need for creeds and confessions.
Stephane ended appropriately with a quote from D Martyn Lloyd-Jones. The Doctor comments on the early church creeds as follows: “The whole purpose of the creeds drawn up by the Christian Church, together with every confession of faith was to enable people to see and to think clearly. Do you think the early Fathers did that sort of thing simply because they enjoyed doing it? Not at all; it was done for a most practical reason. Truth must be defined and safeguarded, otherwise people will walk off into error. So, if we object to doctrine, it is not surprising if we do not see things clearly, it is not surprising if we are unhappy and miserable.”
*
I took the second session on The Salters Hall Debates of 1719. By way of application I spoke about
1. Doctrinal orthodoxy and freedom of conscience. To some the debates were about freedom of conscience, while to others it was all about doctrinal orthodoxy. Somehow we must learn to hold these two in balance.
2. Throwing off the radical tag. For others the concern was for Dissenters to throw off their reputation for being political and religious radicals. By subscribing to accepted confessions and creeds this was demonstrated.
3. The biblical teaching on the Trinity. The story raises the question of whether congregations today are taught the doctrine of the Trinity and how this should be done. If the doctrine of the Trinity is true then it needs to be taught and we need to be clear on how to do that.
4. The place of creeds. Historically, creeds and confessions have arisen out of controversy. From time to time the existence of heterodox teaching has prompted believers to define and declare what is true, biblical doctrine. Those who agree with the Subscribers would argue that confessions provide a pattern of sound teaching (2 Tim 1:13) by which to communicate true, biblical doctrine and oppose false doctrine.
5. The sufficiency of Scripture and how we understand it. Peter Shepherd and others have pointed out that Salters' Hall raises the matter of the sufficiency of Scripture. If it is sufficient, do its doctrines need to be bolstered by creeds and confessions?
6. The importance of systematic theology. The debate points, it can be argued, to the importance of systematic theology, the discipline that makes use of the entire Bible to discover doctrines about biblical topics, such as the Trinity. By looking at all passages that pertain to any given topic, it provides a framework within which our study of the Bible can be carried out.
*
At the third and final session Brad Franklin (above) spoke on Bunyan's Greatheart. His headings were
1. Pastor, you are a conductor of pilgrims to the celestial city
2. Pastor, be tender with your sheep
3. Pastor, fight for your sheep
4. Pastor, be a man
5. Pastor, help them through the valley of the shadow of death (Yea, for aught I could perceive, they continually gave so good heed to the advice of their guide, and he did so faithfully tell them of dangers, and of the nature of the dangers when they were at them, that usually, when they were nearest to them, they did most pluck up their spirits, and hearten one another to deny the flesh.)
6. Pastor, lean into your co-labourers
