You are currently browsing the monthly archive for July, 2008.
The following is a brief comment I posted over at Reformed Catholicism. We were particularly discussing cata-baptism, and then somehow got on to talking about Jonathan Edwards. Included in this brief post are some of the reasons I no longer consider myself a disciple of either Jonathan Edwards or John Piper. I’ve come to the conclusion that both theologians represent a serious departure from the theology, piety, and practice of the Protestant Reformation. Let me say at the outset that I’m deeply indebted to my friends Tim and Matt, both of whom have spent time studying Edwards and his relationship to Reformation Christianity. These thoughts are not at all original, but reflections upon what others have shared with me throughout the past few months.
I was a big Edwards fan up until a few months ago. Edwards’ theology is so fraught with confessional aberrations and seminal forms of latter charismatic expressions of evangelical thinking, that it would be difficult for me to lay out all of the various aspects of Edwards’ thinking that I deem erroneous. Nevertheless, let me lay out a few. Some of them overlap with the ethos of the First Great Awakening generally, others peculiar to Edwardsian thinking specifically. At the outset, let me say that I have an enormous amount of respect for Jonathan Edwards as a philosopher, pastor, theologian, missionary, college president, etc. etc. He is rightly considered by many scholars as one of our country’s greatest thinkers. If you haven’t already, check out George Marsden’s masterful bio of Edwards. It’s fair, balanced, and extremely insightful.
The First Great Awakening historically embodied the profound de-emphasis upon the objective ministry of the church through Word and Sacrament ministry. Edwards, in his obsession with “religious affection” substituted illegitimate religious experiences (apart from the ministry of the church) for the objective means of grace that Old Side Presbyterians fought for so fiercely. Edwards represents a form of introverted Christianity which rises and falls with personal experiences of “religious pleasure.” He represents and embodies, in seminal forms, various brands of charismatic theology where the primary emphasis is placed upon the individual experience, over and against the objective work of the church through the means of grace. This is a problem not only with Edwards, but with the essential task of the First Great Awakening. While certainly grounded in Calvinistic thinking, activities like itinerant preaching (why is it needed when the church is invested with the primary means of genuine revival?) and manipulative homiletical methodology (think Whitefield, Tennet, and others), the FGA lost itself in a devolution of the Reformation task. Also, Edwards’ emphasis upon joy and pleasure, as the primary virtues through which we glorify God, flies in the face of Paul’s multifaceted understanding of Christian ethics in which joy is included among other fruits which the Spirit works in us. This also contradicts Shorter Catechism, Question 1, in which man’s chief end is to glorify God AND to enjoy him forever. That specific conjunction was included for a reason, a reason Edwards and his followers often tend to forget.
Also, Edwardsian metaphysics, at many points, contradicts the archetypal/ectypal distinction set forth by the Reformed scholastics, a distinction which deviated from a Reformed understanding of the ontological relationship between God and man. Edwards saw a direct metaphysical link into the religious experience of man, and the archetypal “beauty” of the Godhead. This metaphysical novelty subtly replaced the theological drive of Reformed Scholasticism at its finest. Edwards philosophically destroyed the distinction between the archetypal knowledge of God in his essence, and the ectypal apprehension of that essence through covenantal condescension and accommodation via Word and Sacrament. I think the reason Edwards’ thinking on this point goes unnoticed by many Reformed scholars lies in the fact that many Reformed scholars aren’t metaphysically trained.
Reformed theology is not centered upon individual experiences grounded in some kind of generalized concept of “the gospel”. Reformed theology is, at its core, centered upon realities outside of the individual’s personal experiences. These realities include the life giving Word of God preached by legitimately ordained ministers of the gospel. These objective realities also include the holy sacraments, wherein the gospel is signified and sealed to both Christians and their seed. All of this implies ectypal accommodation, something completely foreign to Edwardian metaphysics. If Reformed theology is covenantal and sacramental, then Reformed theology, is, by logical consequence, grounded in God’s gracious accommodation. This doesn’t exclude any kind of category in which to place individual experience. It only means that any legitimate religious experience is inextricably linked to the ministry of Word and Sacrament.
While I don’t agree with everything Kevin writes in the post, it’s an interesting and thought provoking read. Nevertheless, I think it’s worth the read. Here’s one point on which I strongly agree. Kevin writes…
Now, never mind that most of the Reformers could only come up with two marks of the church (word and sacrament for those unacquainted with the history of the matter) and at most three (discipline). That’s not enough for a good bulleted bumper sticker powerpoint presentation so we must come up with more!
But look at the nine points above. Notice anything about the sacraments? Hmmm…
In the comment section of the post, Elder Hoss raises a very very good point on which I agree entirely.
Kevin – This is an ironic list from our Baptist friends, if for no other reason than the fact that most of them are zealous for the label “Reformed” when in point of fact, the distinctives they hold in common with their forebears were reprobated in the strongest terms by the Reformers themselves.
This is not to argue that “Reformed Baptists” are “Anabaptists”, only to underscore that there is an entire “field” beyond the TULIP flower in which RB’s live, move, and have their being, and it is fundamentally at odds with Reformed thought and life.
I believe it was the Baptist Kenneth Good who acknowledged this very point in asking rhetorically whether Baptists were “Reformed.”
On a related note, one could have a lot of fun with these marks. Take for example Mark # 7:
“A Biblical Understanding of Church Discipline”.
As Reformed Christians we ought rather view the 9 Marks proposition on point 7 as “A Grave Distortion of Biblical Church Discipline” and then from there, cite the horrendous practice of “re-baptisms”, along with the de facto exclusion of children from the covenant community, all in the name of “discipline.”
Amazing that TULIP Paedobaptists would have anything whatsoever to do with this organization, some of the central tenets of which were consistently abominated by the Magisterial Reformers.
To your point about the conferences – Yes, chuck the parachurch flyers. A colossal waste of a weekend better spent evangelizing lost people, catechising our children, and reading Martin Bucer. Then also, reading Francis Nigel Lee’s work on “Catabaptism in the PCA” in case one is tempted to view this kind of presentation of “The Church” as essentially faithful in the main, which it is not!
Here’s a post from R. Scott Clark over at the Heidelblog dealing with some of the very same issues I discussed yesterday in my post. Enjoy!
Here’s a quick comment I made a few days back regarding the discussion over at the PB. Remember we’re talking about whether the Mosaic covenant is a distinct economy within redemptive history, unique in its suzerain/vassal structure and administration, and a republication of the covenant of works for the typological and political presence of Israel in the land. In other words, the rewards and benefits of the Mosaic covenant are dependent upon Israel’s faithfulness to God’s covenant stipulations, according to Kline and his disciples (including myself). This squares with the law/gospel distinction, the ultimate explanation for the temporary presence of Israel in redemptive history, and the reason for God’s expansion of Israel into the New Covenant Church, both believers and their seed. This differs from Baptistic covenantalism in fundamental respects. Covenantal baptist’s flatten out everything before Christ into “Old Covenant” and place everything after Christ into “New Covenant.” Reformed thinking observes the distinctive nature of the Mosaic economy while recognizing that the Abrahamic covenant of grace continually and eternally operates throughout all redemptive epochs. Thus, paedobaptism is linked not with an “Old Covenant practice”, but with the eternal sign and seal of circumcision which God instituted under Abraham. Here is the original comment, to which I’ve expanded a bit…
What people are failing to realize is that Klinean covenantalism in no way argues for a soteriological works principle active in the justification of individual Israelities. Nor does Kline argue that God’s covenant faithfulness is no where present within the administration of the Sinai covenant. Kline argues on typological and national lines! Was the Lord faithful to Israel in the midst of apostasy and blatant rebellion? Yes! Nevertheless, was Israel’s national and typological presence in the land strictly dependent upon the condition of obedience to the law? Yes! I just finished Iain Duguid’s essay in CJPM. While I agree with him in many respects, and think that its a marvelous essay, I disagree with the notion that the Lord’s faithfulness to Israel was grounded in the original pact at Sinai. The language of conditionality in the Pentateuch cannot be ignored. God’s faithfulness to Israel in providing a new and greater Israel to perfectly fulfill the covenant of works on behalf of mankind is inextricably linked to the Abrahamic promise of land (the anti-typical/eschatological land of new heavens and new earth), seed (the singular seed of Abraham who as the new Adam met the terms of the covenant of works on behalf of his people [seeds]), and blessing (the salvific gospel blessing Abraham’s true seed (plural) enjoy in the accomplishment and application of redemption). Republication language is not a Klinean novelty. Nor is it peculiar to WSC. It’s a covenantal view which was hammered out by many respectable Reformed theologians of the past. It’s also a view that’s maligned, misrepresented, and the object of unfortunate ad hominem attacks. At risk is not merely some speculative disagreements over the nature of covenant theology. What’s at risk is the distinction between law and gospel, and the ultimate soteriological consequences of denying that fundamental distinction. Mess with the law/gospel distinction, and your soteriology, especially justification by faith alone, could be seriously and dangerously transformed into something other than Reformed.
I recently posed a question at the PB, asking what some of their opinions were on Meredith Kline’s covenantal formulations. The majority consensus seemed to be that Kline deviated from historic Reformed orthodoxy by regarding the Mosaic Covenant as a republication of the covenant of works for the nation of Israel. One man in particular objected to the law/gospel distinction, saying that its simply not Reformed. The conversation can be found here. For context, we’re specifically discussing whether the Sinai covenant should be regarded as a republication of the covenant of works, or a progressive redemptive/historical administration of the covenant of grace. Also discussed is the historical legitimacy of claiming that the Mosaic Covenant is a works covenant. Owen was cited as denying this claim. I beg to differ. Here is my response…
Casey. Apologies if my wording was ambiguous. Nevertheless, I could have heard the same statement espoused by any Federal Visionist seeking to create a distinctly “Reformed” understanding of law and gospel in an attempt to revamp our confessional doctrine of justification. I’m not saying you’re a federal visionist in any sense, I’m merely noting that the rhetoric is similar. Reformed scholasticism at its finest distinguished between law and gospel as fundamentally different soteriological paradigms. From Ursinius to Turretin to Shedd to Vos to Bavinck, the Reformed have always spoken of the law/gospel distinction as integral to Reformed systematics. Noteworthy is that when Beza hashed out the fundamental differences between Lutheranism and Calvinism, the law/gospel distinction nor justification by faith alone were never listed as something fundamentally disagreed upon. The modern attempt to pit Lutheran formulations of law/gospel over and against a distinctly “Reformed” understanding of these principles has been a major contribution to the revisionistic heresies we’re seeing in the NPP, FV, and Shepherd. I agree that we shouldn’t attempt to flatten out the Mosaic covenant strictly into one particular principle like law/gospel or works/grace. Obviously, the Lord was patient and gracious with Israel in her continual apostasy, and grace abounded when blatant sin and idolatry were present within the nation. God’s election of Israel as a nation was also a gracious act of condescension, along with the types and shadows which pointed to the person and work of Christ. Nevertheless, on a typological and national level, I think the works principle is there. It was the failure of the Mosaic Covenant to offer a salvific remedy for Israel’s lawbreaking that constituted the need for the New Covenant, wherein the mind’s and heart’s of God’s people are transformed from within as the law is written on their hearts.
As for Owen being included among the ranks of those who saw the Mosaic Covenant as a covenant of grace, I would beg to differ. Owen used the “republication” language when speaking of the Mosaic covenant. Owen viewed Israel’s national and typological status, along with her physical blessings in the land as dependent upon obedience to the law, this reality reflective of the ethos of the covenant of works. In speaking of the Mosaic Covenant Owen writes…
“It revived the promise of that covenant, – that of eternal life upon perfect obedience. So the apostle tells us that Moses thus describeth the righteousness of the law, ‘That the man which doeth those things shall live by them,’ Rom x.5; as he doth, Lev.xviii.5. Now this is no other but the covenant of works revived. Nor had this covenant of Sinai any promise of eternal life annexed unto it, as such, but only the promise inseparable from the covenant of works which it revived, saying, ‘Do this, and live.’” XXII, p.78
“In recent years, there has been a growing sense of the place and efficacy of the means of grace, including the sacraments. In the OPC and other Reformed and Presbyterian churches, at least in some measure, there has been a revived commitment to ‘the outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to his church the benefits of his mediation (WLC 154).’ While we acknowledge that only the sovereign Spirit can empower these means, either in ordinary or extraordinary ways (as we see at different points throughout church history), it is surely our duty diligently to attend upon them and wait upon our gracious God for his blessing.
Church members are starting to realize that the faithful preaching of the Word of God is not simply ’sharing’, but the effectual application of God’s Word to the hearts and lives of hearers. Similarly, baptism and the Lord’s Supper are being appreciated as more than bare memorials. The real presence is being more appreciated in the latter, and the former is being better understood as a sign and seal of our saving union with Christ (Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:3; WLC 165). Furthermore, a renewed sense of our inability and of God’s grace surely fuels the engine of prayer. As we come to grips with how little we have valued the means of grace, even in worship, we will make greater use of them.” -Alan D. Strange, Baptism in Our Confessional Standards, New Horizons Magazine (OPC)
Theonomy confuses the distinction between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace, while simultaneously embracing a covenantal continuity that our confessions simply don’t articulate. Theonomist’s claim that the civil and judicial laws of the Mosaic covenant are permanently normative expressions of God’s will for all socieities in every generation. This contradicts a Klinean understanding of the temporal and typological significance of the Mosaic covenant as a republication of the covenant of works for the nation of Israel. This also transforms the Mosaic covenant into a covenant of grace and confuses the law/gospel distinction. Confusion of these vital concepts logically results in an unorthodox view of justification, where faith and works constitute the instrumental cause of our righteous standing before God. Many theonomist’s gravitate towards Shepherd’s unorthodox soteriology, and its really no wonder why. If orthodox Reformed soteriology be upheld in our generation, the law/gospel distinction must be proclaimed with a strict confessional vigor.
Here is a response I recently made to an Eastern Orthodox man who posted some quotes from a vitriolic rant against historic Reformed and Lutheran educational agendas. Here’s the original article to which I responded.
“The first modern movement for compulsory state education stemmed directly from the Reformation. A prime force was Martin Luther. Luther repeatedly called for communities to establish public schools and to make attendance in them compulsory. In his famous letter to the German rulers in 1524, Luther used Statist premises to reach Statist conclusions:”
Dear rulers…I maintain that the civil authorities are under obligation to compel the people to send their children to school….If the government can compel such citizens as are fit for military service to bear spear and rifle, to mount ramparts, and perform other martial duties in times of war, how much more has it a right to compel the people to send their children to school, because in this case we are warring with the devil, whose object it is secretly to exhaust our cities and principalities of their strong men.
Rothbard goes on: “As a result of Luther’s urgings, the German state of Gotha founded the first modern public schools in 1524, and Thurungia followed in 1527. Luther himself founded the Saxony School Plan, which later became, in essence, the state education system for most of the Protestant States of Germany. This plan was put into effect first in Saxony in 1528, through an edict drawn up by Luther’s important disciple Melancthon, setting up state schools in every town and village….”
“What was the spirit behind Luther’s call for compulsory state education? A common view is that it reflected the Reformers’ democratic spirit and the desire to have everyone read the Bible, the presumption being that they wished to encourage each one to interpret the Bible for himself. The truth is quite otherwise. The Reformers advocated compulsory education for all as a means of inculcating the entire population with their particular religious views, as in indispensable aid in effective ‘war with the devil’ and the devil’s agents. For Luther, these agents constituted a numerous legion: not only Jews, Catholics, and infidels, but also all other Protestant sects. Luther’s political ideal was an absolute State guided by Lutheran principles and ministers. The fundamental principle was that the Bible, as interpreted by Luther, was the sole guide in all things….No less ardent a despot was Melancthon, Luther’s principle aid in the drive for compulsory state schools in Germany….Melancthon taught firmly that all sects must be put down with the sword, and that any individual who originated new religious opinions should be punished with death. This punishment must be levied against any difference, however slight, in Protestant teachings. All others than Lutherans–Catholics, Anabaptists, Servetians, Zwinglians, etc., were to be persecuted with the utmost zeal.”
“Aside from Luther, the other leading influence toward the establishment of compulsory education in the modern world was the other great Reformer, John Calvin….In Geneva, Calvin established a number of public schools, at which attendance was compulsory. What was the spirit that animated Calvin’s establishment of the State school system? The spirit was the inculcation of the message of Calvinism, and obedience to the theocratic despotism which he had established. Calvin combined within himself political dictator and religious teacher. To Calvin, nothing mattered, no liberty or right was important, except his doctrine and its supremacy. Calvin’s doctrine held that the support of Calvinism is the end and object of the State, and that this involves maintaining purity of doctrine and strict austerity in the behavior of the people. Only a small minority on earth are the “elect”…, and the rest are a mass of sinners who must be coerced by the sword, with the conquerors imposing Calvinist faith on the subjects. He did not favor killing all heretics. Catholics and Jews would be allowed to live, but all Protestants other than Calvinists must be killed. In some cases, however, he changed his position and advocated the severest punishment for Catholics as well.”
“As the Calvinists became important throughout Europe, they agitated for the establishment of compulsory state schools. In 1560, the French Calvinists, the Huguenots, sent a memorandum to the king, requesting the establishment of universal compulsory education, but were turned down. In 1571, however, Queen Jeanne d’Albret, of the Estates of Navarre, under Calvinist influence, made primary education compulsory throughout that part of France. Calvinist Holland established compulsory public schools in 1609.”
“[John] Knox attempted to establish universal compulsory education in Scotland in the 1560s, but failed in the attempt.”
“One of the most far-reaching effects of the Calvinist tradition is its influence on American educational history. Calvinist influence was strong among the English Puritans, and it was the Puritan influence that inaugurated public schools and compulsory education in New England, from whence it finally conquered the whole United States.”
Here is my response…
While the Reformers indeed presented theocratically driven educational institutions in their respective cultural locales, I think these comments stem more from an abhorrence of the Reformation task itself than from the educational ideals of Calvin and Luther. I’m aware you’re not a Protestant. I’m also aware that as an Orthodox Christian, you probably have a certain measure of disdain for the autonomously theological, cultural, and institutional drive of the papacy. While Calvin’s Geneva or Luther’s Germany might certainly be deemed excessively and authoritatively theocractic in many respects, these tendencies pale in comparison to the theological tyranny of the papacy during that specific period of time. As a Protestant Christian, I sympathize with Calvinist and Lutheran educational reforms in light of papal heresies and political tyranny. Even as an Orthodox Christian, try looking at this from their perspective. For them, Rome had corrupted the gospel through years of papal abuse. Ecclesiastically sanctioned schools were a means to achieving Calvinist and Lutheran orthodoxy in society.
Also realize that Sola Scriptura never gave individual Christians the autonomous perogative to interpret the Scriptures in any way they please. This is the case among evangelicals and fundamentalists, but certainly not confessional Reformed and Lutheran bodies. Sola Scriptura, for Protestants, is grounded in the authoritative role of ecclesiastically sanctioned symbols, apart from which there can be no deviation. I oftentimes think that Reformed and Lutheran Christians are treated unfairly, being lumped together with early 20th century squabbles between fundamentalists and liberals. Our ecclesiastical bodies are confessional, and while that might not satisfy an Orthodox or Roman Catholic, it at least provides them with a different category in which to fairly place us. We are not fundamentalists. Neither are we evangelicals. We are confessionally Reformed and Lutheran bodies with our own distinct vocabulary, categories, and confessionally sanctioned paradigms.
