TYNDALIAN THEOLOGY IN THE WORLD TODAY
Although the theology of
William Tyndale differs little from that
of Luther,
there is a subtle difference of emphasis and focus that produces
surprisingly
different results. If you are familiar with the work and preaching of
Dr.
Walter A. Maier, the best way of illustrating that difference in
emphasis might
be by comparing it to the difference between Dr. Maier and the other
Lutherans
of his era.
Even though Dr. Maier
espoused the doctrine of the Missouri Synod, he was clearly different.
While
most Lutherans accepted those differences, some found fault with him.
Unlike
most Lutheran pastors he preached with fervor, preferred to preach
without
clerical robes, called upon his listeners to make a decision, and
emphasized
faith in God’s promise of forgiveness in Christ rather than baptism.
His
theology has been described as, “traditional
Lutheranism expressed in an untraditional manner”. However, even though
this
differed from what Lutherans were used to, in Tyndalian
circles those differences would have been the norm rather than the
exception.
While that might be seen as evidence that the difference between
Lutheran and Tyndalian theology is largely
a difference in emphasis, the
doctrine preached by Dr. Walter A. Maier, and recorded in his sermons,
is the
same doctrine that William Tyndale
preached.
While
Lutherans rely heavily on confessions, and use statements of faith to
define
what they believe, the Tyndalian emphasis
is on what the
Bible says without any explanation. That is not because there is any
problem
with what the confessions say – except possibly with what the Formula
of
Concord says about eucharistic presence –
but because Tyndale’s emphasis was on the
Bible. Furthermore, because
Scripture interprets itself, the statements of Scripture are far
clearer than
any man made confession. I realize that there are many things in the
Bible that
we do not understand. However, the doctrine that God wants us to
believe and teach,
is the doctrine stated so clearly in His Word that it needs no
interpretation
(2Corinthians 1:13). Therefore, we do not start with what is hard to
understand, but with those truths so clearly stated that no one can
deny that
that is what the Bible says. We then interpret the rest in the light of
what
those passages clearly say. [Isaiah 28:9-11, 1John
1:5,
2Corinthians
The Biblical hermeneutic is summarized in
two
passages of Scripture. First, the words, “If you continue in my word,
then you
are my disciples indeed; And you shall know the truth, and the truth
shall make
you free,” summarize every passage that warns us not to add to or take
from
what the Bible says ( John
In order to demonstrate how
these rules eliminate false interpretation, let us look at the words,
“The Lord
himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the
archangel.” One cult insists that the words, “voice of the archangel,”
prove
that Christ is an archangel. However, that claim is built on an
assumption, not
on what the Bible says. They assume that the voice of the archangel is
the
voice of Christ, when the Bible says no such thing! Then, on the basis
of that
assumption, they jump to the conclusion that Christ is an archangel,
even
though it contradicts all of the passages that tell us that Christ is
God (John
1:1-18, 1 John 5:20, etc.). Their assumption is an addition to God’s
Word.
Their conclusion is an addition to God’s Word. And, the fact that they
contradict Scripture, tells us that they are in rebellion against God
(1Samuel
Because we are not to add to God’s Word, the doctrine God has given us is nothing other than what Bible clearly and explicitly says, “line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little;” (Isaiah 28:10). I once tried to explain that to a cult member, only to have him say, “If it was that simple no one would have to go to church, they could just stay home and read their Bible.” What he failed to see was that that is one reason we do need to go to church. Left to ourselves, our carnal imaginations would run wild, and we would read all sort of unscriptural ideas into the text (Jeremiah 17:9). That is exactly what Dr. Francis Pieper was talking about when he said:
The first and foremost duty
of the exegete consists in holding the flighty spirit of man to the
simple word
of Scripture and, where he has departed from it, to lead him back to
the simple
word of Scripture. Luther says that the
sole purpose of all his writings and particularly of his exegetical
works is to
lead back into Scripture… The whole Christian doctrine is
revealed in
Scripture passages that need no exegesis, but are an open book alike to
the
learned and the unlearned and can be so readily translated that the
translator
cannot go wrong unless he has made up his mind to depart from the
original.
[“Christian Dogmatics”, Vol. one, pgs 360
and 347]
In order to bring our theology into
accord with the
Word of God we must begin by bringing our thinking into accord with the
Word of
God (Romans 12:2). We do that by eliminating unscriptural ideas and
interpretations that contradict what the Bible says. And, the standard
we use
in eliminating error consists of those truths so clearly stated in
Scripture
that they need no interpretation. Since the Bible is primarily
historic, we
begin with Bible history. Furthermore, because the Bible interprets
itself, it
is Scripture, not the deceitfulness of the human heart, that determines
which
portions of the Bible are history and which are not. And, the Bible
tells us
that the Biblical record of creation is history in dozens of passages
(Romans
I am aware that the forces of Satan are
viciously
attacking the Biblical record of history. But, the people who reject
Bible
history are violating both of the rules that I previously stated. They
depart
from God’s Word, by reading atheistic assumptions into the text, and
they rebel
against God by contradicting His Word (John
In saying this, I want to make it perfectly clear that there is no conflict between true science and the Bible. There only appears to be a conflict when the religion of atheism is passed off as science. For example: because one experiment after another has demonstrated that life comes only from preexisting life, whenever someone claims that life came into existence on its own he is teaching atheistic religion not science. Likewise, because about forty percent of all fossil life forms are not extinct (and have not changed since the rocks were formed), whenever someone claims that an extinct life form has evolved into something else, he is teaching atheistic religion not science. Atheists have simply conned the public into believing that every “natural explanation” is science, even when such explanations contradict actual scientific evidence.
Bible history is important because God has revealed Himself in history. We worship the God who created the world in six days. We worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And, we worship the God who took on the nature of man through the miracle of the virgin birth, lived a sinless life, died for our sins, and rose again the third day. Furthermore, seven of the historical events recorded in Scripture have a deep spiritual significance, and that spiritual significance constitutes the heart and core of the salvation message. This is not an opinion, the Bible explicitly tells us what the spiritual significance of those events is.
For example: The words, “By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin,” tell us the spiritual significance of the fall. The words, “His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father,” tell us the spiritual significance of Christ’s virgin birth. And, the words, “He is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world,” tell us the spiritual significance of Christ’s death on the cross. Now, the seven historical events I am speaking of, just happen to be the events summarized in the “Apostles’ Creed”, although the fall is not explicitly mentioned.
I believe in God the Father
almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.
And in
Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord; Who was conceived by the
Holy Ghost, Born of the Virgin Mary; Suffered under Pontius Pilate, Was
crucified, died for our sins, and was buried; He descended into hell;
The third
day He rose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven And sits on
the right
hand of God the Father Almighty; From there He shall come to judge the
quick
and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost;
The holy Christian Church, the communion of saints; The
forgiveness of sins; The resurrection of the body; And the life
everlasting.
Amen.
In his book, “The Theology
of Post Reformation Lutheranism”, Robert Preus
provides an in-depth presentation of the Biblical hermeneutic, coupled
with a
scholarly exposition of the doctrine of Scripture that no true Tyndalian would ever disagree with. The same
could be said
of its companion volume (on the doctrine of God), and of His book,
“Justification and
Concerning the Biblical
hermeneutic, he said, “The dogmatitians
whom we have
studied considered themselves and genuine Lutheranism bound not only to
a
doctrine but to a hermeneutic. To abandon the hermeneutics which they
believed
was Christ’s hermeneutics and that of the New Testament would result in
abandoning the Christian Doctrine as well.” (Vol. 2, page 257)
[Note: Michael Farris’ book, “From Tyndale to
Because Tyndalian
doctrine is the doctrine explicitly stated in God’s Word, the epistles
of Paul,
and especially his letter to the Romans, constitute the foremost
statement of
that theology. Therefore, when Paul explains in
Romans
3:9-20, that the law cannot make us righteous, that is Tyndalian
doctrine. When Paul explains in Romans 3:21-28 that Christ has
made it
possible for us to be justified by faith, without the works of the law, that is Tyndalian
doctrine.
When Paul goes on (in Romans 4) to explain that, to be justified by
faith is to
be justified by imputed righteousness, that is Tyndalian
doctrine. When he goes on in chapter 5 to hold up Christ’s death as the
source
of our justification, that is Tyndalian
doctrine. And, when he goes on to explain that just as the sin of one
man made
everyone guilty the obedience of one man makes us all righteous,
teaching that
we are saved by what Christ did, not by what we do, that is Tyndalian
doctrine. Therefore, it would be irresponsible for us to sit by
allowing the
children of darkness to confuse the issues, cause division, and subvert
faith
by reading unscriptural assumptions into the text of Scripture, by
jumping to
conclusions that contradict what the Bible says elsewhere, or by
denying the
truth of what is written.