|
 John
Wyclif was the first to make extended efforts to give Englishmen
the Bible in their own language. This was in 1380/1382. But
Wyclif “gave us the Bible” in more ways than that of
manuscript. He stirred hearts anew with the age-old truth of man’s
right to stand in direct relationship with His
Maker. He denied that “the Church” (the Clergy) stood
between man and God — that man needed any Mediator other than
Jesus Christ. (1 Tim. 2:5)
In
appraising the work of John Wyclif, the historian Philip Schaff
(V. 6, p. 323) says, “The most important of Wyclif’s
theological treatises, the Trialogus, was written in this
period. It lays down the principle that, where the Bible and the
Church do not agree, we must obey the Bible, and, where
conscience and human authority are in conflict, we must follow
conscience.”
Schaff
(p.327) summarizes Wyclif’s writings in Divine Lordship:
“Lordship is not properly proprietary. It is stewardship.
Christ did not desire to rule as a tenant with absolute rights,
but in the way of communicating to others... everyone in the
state of grace has a real lordship over the whole universe. All
Christians are reciprocally lords and servants.” (Reread, and
think on that.)
Later,
John Huss (1369-1415) took up the cry, and of him Schaff writes
(p. 384): “His conception of the Church,
which he drew from Wyclif, contains the kernel of an entirely
new system of religious authority. He made the Scriptures the
final source of appeal, and exalted the authority of the
conscience above pope, council and canon
|
|
law as an
interpreter of truth. He carried out these views in practice by
continuing to preach in spite of repeated sentences of
excommunication... If the Church be the company of the elect, as
Huss maintained, then God rules in His people and they are
sovereign.”
Religious
Reformation, Restoration, and “the Spirit
of Restoration” must begin here. We began our
Vol. 12, series of Church History at this point, and we end it
here. In our day what was once “revolutionary thinking” is
now common. Readers of Plain Talk may not take time to
understand the meat in the above quotes, but they agree with the
conclusions. Our problem is not one of understanding (at least
to the point of glibly repeating the words) that each individual
can and should study the Scriptures for himself, and act with
good conscience toward God. We agree (in theory) that we are
each directly and individually related to God through Christ. But
we may be short on practice.
A
large segment of brethren have accepted the idea that “the
great middle section” of the church can’t be wrong. Avoid
“extremes” (i.e., either side of the “great middle section”)
and all is well. Unintentionally, but none the less certainly,
this negates the noble principle of “Back to the Bible,” and
enthrones the judgment of our peers.
Direct
appeal to divine authority via the authoritative word is not an
easy course. But it is God’s way, and therefore the only right
way.
[Previous
Article] [Next
Article]
|
