I cannot pass up this latest article by Peter Leithart in
the First Things blog/magazine entitled the End of Protestantism. Leithart argues that Protestantism needs to
end and is ending, but the Reformation goes on.
He spends some time making the case that Protestants just knee jerk
react to Romanism and think history begins with Calvin and Zwingli and that it
is a bad attitude to have. I don’t
really want to interact with any of that.
What I think is more interesting is the emphasis on Historical Doctrinal
Development that I have argued was a main plank of the Federal Vision movement from the beginning.
Leithart advocates at Reformed Catholicism, which used to be
the name of a blog that agreed with the FV and promoted Mercersburg
Theology. Leithart sets this whole
article in terms of dialectical opposition without using the phrase. Phillip Schaff would be proud. Protestantism is simply the antithesis to the
thesis of Romanism. Do not miss that
vital point. Each has doctrines that
will need to be jettisoned such as forensic justification in favor of salvation
that is intrinsically “social” and the Romanist will need to jettison the
papism, but in the end both sides are wrong.
The Thesis and Antithesis are both the wrong answers. Leithart does admit the serve a purpose or as
he puts it, “Protestantism has had a good run”.
Now however is the time for the
synthesis.
And Leithart does call for that synthesis. He states,
"Reformed Catholicism meets George Weigel’s Evangelical
Catholicism coming from the direction of Rome and gives it a hearty handshake."
He concludes by saying “It’s time to turn the protest on
Protestantism and look for a new way to be heirs of the Reformation”. A new way.
Doctrinal Development. A new way
that is meeting in the middle with Roman Catholicism. This is exactly what Phillip Schaff
envisioned in his Principle of Protestantism: a reunion of Romanism with the
worship and objectivism with the Protestant subjectivism and rejection of a
pope.
You will note Doug Wilson is already coming to his defense
while claiming to be Protestant through and through. Wilson favors doctrinal development as can be
seen in Reformed is Not Enough. The only
thing he really disagrees with in Leithart’s article is the labels. See his attack on R. Scott Clark and his
response to Leithart. After all these
years I still doctrinal and historical development is a motivating factor for
the Federal Vision and a real danger in our denominations. And despite all the papers condemning FV, it
is seldom mentioned. Schaff’s Principle
of Protestantism is still the principle at work in the Federal Vision and
Leithart just as it was the principle at work in Mercersburg.