On Scripture and Creeds

There is some good stuff around the blogosphere about scripture and creeds.

Over at First Things, Peter Leithart gives a summary of Richard Hays’ paper on Gospel and Creeds delivered at Trinity School of Ministry.

Hays opened the lecture by noting his differences with NT Wright concerning the relationship of creed and Scripture. But in the end, he acknowledged that the creeds cannot substitute for the gospels and acknowledged that Wright has some valid points concerning the lacunae and limits of the creeds, especially as regards Israel’s Scripture and history as the essential framework for understanding Jesus. The difference between the two, Hays said, lies in Wright’s insistence on the primacy of historical analysis of the gospels, and Hays’s happy recognition that he interprets the gospels from within a creedal and liturgical context.

Thanks to Ben Myers is a lecture by Robert Jenson on Creed, Scripture, and their Modern Alienation.

I particularly like when Jenson says “The church is the community of a message, the message is that the God of Israel has raised his servant Jesus from the dead. At least that much, everybody from the Russian Orthodox to the American Pentecostals ought to be able to agree. I would even say that anyone who cannot agree with so much belongs to a different religious community” (6:45). Interesting also, that he calls the regula fidei a “communal linguistic awareness” of the faith delivered to the apostles (26:25). 

"Thank you for your reply.1. I see how the author could believe that Adam could ..."

Why I Believe in Monocovenantalism
"Thank you for this explanation. It prompts these questions for me:1. Do the Scriptures indicate ..."

Why I Believe in Monocovenantalism
"Thanks, Michael, for this exposition of the covenants. If one sees a spectrum of (non)covenant ..."

Why I Believe in Monocovenantalism
"Paul was conflicted about the Jews. On the one hand they rejected Jesus for the ..."

Did Paul ever try to convert ..."

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Taka

    Peter Leithart’s was an interesting piece but I wondered what Hays meant by “Jesus is Yahweh” (Point 2)?
    Did Hays really say that? If he did, how carefully did he nuance that statement?

    I guess that there are ways to identify Jesus and Yahweh but it’s important how to state that identification, I think.
    Did Hays mean the identity of Jesus of Nazareth is none other than Yahweh himself?

    I put that clarifying question to Hays by email a while ago but haven’t got a reply yet.

    What do you think?.

    Jesus is Yahweh
    Jesus is Yahweh