Creeds
In the discussion thread to "Thoughts on ELW Letter," a side discussion on creeds began. I thought it might be helpful to invite everyone in on this discussion.
While talking about the filioque, Eric asked:
But should textual faithfulness have the absolute priority when we are translating the Creeds?The Creeds were not received by the Church as infallible texts on par with Scripture. So, when it comes to Creeds, I believe faithfulness to the original text is an important but secondary concern. Our primary goal should be to set forth Creeds that faithfully reflect the truth of God’s Word. Wouldn’t you agree?
This seems to me to be a question of authority. What authority do the creeds have, and why do we accept that authority?
Here's my take: The creeds are a sign of the unity of God, made such by their authorship (with the exception of the Athanasian) at one of the ecumenical councils. If they can be changed at any time, and reference to the original text is unimportant, then why bother? At that point, anyone at anytime can change the meaning of the Creed, to make it more in line with their understanding of Scripture. And so, perhaps you wind up with a Calvinist church whose Nicene Creed does not include a reference to the Virgin Mary, a Baptist church whose creed believes in as many baptisms as necessary for the forgiveness of sins, and a Roman church whose creed confesses in one holy, Petrine, Roman Catholic church. If the original text is not what is most important, then at what point, and on what basis, do we say - "No, the creed cannot be made to say that."
What is the authority of the creeds? DO they arrive at their authority only insofar as they agree with Scripture? And if so, whose interpretation of Scripture? Or are they tools to help us to interpret and read Scripture?
5 comments:
What is the authority of the creeds? DO they arrive at their authority only insofar as they agree with Scripture? And if so, whose interpretation of Scripture? Or are they tools to help us to interpret and read Scripture?
The Creeds, as well as the Lutheran Confessions, are authoritative because they are in agreement with Scripture, and not merely authoritative insofar as they agree with Scripture. This is the essence of Lutheran identity.
Maybe I need to backpedal a little bit because it sure looks like I was suggesting it is okay to rewrite the Creeds as long as they conform to Scripture. That is not at all what I believe or what I meant. Anytime you set out to translate a text, faithfulness to the original is extremely important. But I would suggest that where a translator faces an exercise in judgment on the use of various words or phrases, perhaps the first thing he ought to consider is how well the various options communicate the truth of Scripture.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the dispute between East and West over the filioque is in the first instance a textual dispute. Can you tell us a little bit about the nature and background of that dispute?
Eric -
My apologizes, I did not mean to misrepresent you when I posted that quote from you.
The filioque involves much more than textual issues. It is, first and foremost a question of how we understand authority, and it also involves theological/philosophical issues and linguistic issues between East and West.
I will post a follow-up about the filioque later today.
You are forgiven, David... I've always wanted to say that to a Pastor! ;)
Seriously... I used the term "backpedal" precisely because I didn't think you were misrepresenting me. If anything, I misrepresented myself, and your comments helped me recognize that.
Dear David Hansen,
I am a newbie in bloggers, and forgive me if this is not the proper blog to write my question. I have read that after Luther put his 96 theses, he denounced the doctrine of the immortality of the soul. Is that truth? Thank you very much for your time.
Post a Comment