Do we have a High Point?

Far be it from me to disagree with the JollyBlogger or Bryan Chapell, who is the one quoted, but I have not published anything theological in a while, and so I am going to disagree.

The JollyBlogger reports that Bryan Chapell had a sermon at GA about the PCA at 35 years. Chapell claims the PCA is faithful to the Scriptures, believes in the inerrancy of Scripture, has haggled for 35 years about what means to be faithful to the Westminster Standards, and now should focus on being mission-minded. While I think that the PCA’s position paper on Creation reflects badly on the PCA’s view of inerrancy, I will let that point pass without further discussion. What I really want to discuss is the quote touted by the JollyBlogger from Rev. Chapell. He said,

The best part of that sermon for me was when he said something to the effect of "the high point of the church cannot have been 500 years ago."

My first response, and should be everyone’s response, is ‘Why not?’ Admittedly without context it is hard to deal with this quote, but one is starting to see it more and more. It is usually a plea to move past the Reformation tradition no matter how it is hidden or dressed up. If someone is going to make a statement that something cannot be true, then it needs to be well defended.

First, is Rev. Chapell talking about the high point of theology? If so then why can 500 years ago not be the high point? Why cannot approximately 2000 years ago not be the high point? What even makes us think that there are high point and low point in the history of theology? What about our theology today should be different than the theology of the apostles, the Westminster Divines, the Old Side Presbyterians? What exactly should be changed to make us move ‘higher’ in Rev. Chapell’s mind? If Rev. Chapell meant this to be about theology then he has fallen into the trap of the Schaff/Hegelian model of theology. I reject the idea that theology grows and becomes more known and more complex over time like a Math book does as one goes from addition and subtraction to Calculus (Doug Wilson’s favorite example). It is certainly not a statement that should just be thrown out without defense, nor should it be accepted without discussion. Is not the faith once given the saints, and we charged with holding fast to it. Where exactly do we get the idea that as history progress and changes, so too must our theology?

Second, if he is talking about moving past the Reformation as far as planting churches and spreading the influence of the church, then whom on earth disagrees with him? The Reformation is not looked to by people as an example of the greatest degree of influence the church ever had. In fact, the Reformation is probably one of the low points with regards to influence the church had. I have never heard anyone think that the high point of church missions or planting or influence has past or that the time of the Reformation was that high point.

Again, I do not have all of the context, but I bet Rev. Chapell was speaking along the lines of the first point, that somehow the church needs to move beyond the Westminster or stop thinking about past theology, and start thinking about new ways/theology to reach the lost in the modern culture. I really would like someone who was there to explain it to me.

My main point here is this: we need to consciously examine what we think about history itself, whether it has high points and low points, whether or not it is proper to look back or whether or not the lessons of history are useful in the present. These things are under attack, and I fear that we too often want some new innovation to lead our churches simply because we all accept the maxim that new is better. I hope that this is not what Rev. Chapell meant, but it is something that is making its rounds in the church today.

Denominational Unity, the Gospel, and Historiography

I want to post one more interaction with Alastair on the subject of Denominational unity that I began in this last post. The most recent post by Alastair illustrates well the difference between Alastair’s view of the church and God’s work in history, and mine, as well as illustrating a few troubling points about the Schaff-like historiography followed by Alastair.

First the difference this post illuminates is one of ecumenism. If the idea is that the church breaks apart and then builds back up with a greater understanding then one must look for a way to build back up the breaking down that has occurred in the fracturing of denominations. One must even find a way to build back up the broken relationship between Protestants and Rome. Alastair does just that through finding a definition of the term ‘gospel’ that can include both Rome and Geneva. Alastair claims:

All of this said, the gospel is not primarily a message about how individuals can go to heaven when they die, but is the proclamation of the advent of God’s kingdom in history.

Thus, Alastair can advocate unity around the gospel and dismiss the differences between how one gets to heaven in the Roman church and the Protestant churches. Now, I am not saying that Alastair does not care about justification by faith. I am not saying that Alastair denies justification by faith alone. I do not want to be misquoted. What I believe Alastair is saying is that we ought not to view a denial of justification by faith alone as a denial of the gospel.

I should take a minute and state that I do agree with Alastair that the term ‘gospel’ is much broader than just individual salvation. I do think it is about the Kingdom of God, the King Jesus, and about the triumph of the kingdom in the end when all are judged. But, I do think this includes the idea of salvation. After all a message about a heavenly kingdom without a message of how to get into the kingdom is hardly good news. Jesus in John 3 is amazed when Nicodemus does not know how to see and enter the kingdom. Thus the message of being born again in fundamental to the message of the kingdom.

Second, I think one of the troubling points about Alastair’s view of history rears its head in this post. Alastair earlier claimed that looking back in history for guidance is wrong because that church was less mature. In this post, Alastair advocates going back to Early Church Creed and their definition of the gospel. Although not stated, I believe it is a logical conclusion that Alastair believe in a unity based on the Ecumenical Creeds of the Early Church as do men like Andrew Sandlin. The inconsistency between the statements really needs to be addressed. If the early church was a less mature church, why should we use their definition of gospel? I should state here that I disagree with Alastair about the definition of the gospel in the early church creeds. Alastair claims the early creeds define the gospel as about the Kingdom coming in Christ, who fulfilled Scripture, and delivered his people from the present evil age. I am not going to enter into a long interaction with the Early Creeds, I simply do not believe the creeds in question set out to define the gospel. All of the early creeds were written to address specific heresies that had arisen. The Apostle’s Creed is the only possible exception and it was written to be a baptismal confession, not a definition of the gospel.

Still, the one question remains for Alastair and those who follow that line of thinking. If the church is maturing as time passes why argue for unity based on the lowest common denominator? Why argue for unity based on the most immature statements (according to their historiography) that exist? Why not argue for unity only on the basis of the latest theological development and level of maturity? Alastair’s view of history drives him to view innovations in theology as steps forward, as growing maturity. Yet, his view of history also pushes him to rebuild what has been broken, such as the unity of the church, anyway possible. Alastair and those with him need to claim unity based on the past and wisdom of the past all while asking us to put away the wisdom of the past and embrace the new, mature thinking.

I for one would rather have a different view of history. One that embraces history, embraces unity on the basics of Christianity that have been embraced throughout all ages of the church, and sees the Church created in full maturity just as God created Adam and Eve and the whole world as a fully mature world.

Handed Over and Delivered - Response to Alastair

Alastair has posted his thoughts on denominationalism in a couple of posts. His enlightening post is well thought out and worth a read to anyone interested in history or ecumenism. I do think that his post highlights some points of disagreement that I think the church as a whole should discuss more carefully. It concerns the nature of the church, and it serves as the spring board and foundation for the rest of Alastair’s posts. He begins with this:

When Christ founded His Church, He founded it to be a growing and maturing, rather than a static and unchanging entity. Primitivist ecclesiologies are suspect for this reason. The NT pattern of the Church is normative in certain respects, but is designed to be outgrown in others. Christ wants His Church to become more glorious with age and a reversion to the more simple worship and structures of a past age can be a step in the wrong direction.

Here Alastair clearly gives us his view of the church. The church was created immature and in need of growth or sanctification, if you will. The church we see in the NT, and OT for that matter, are normative and a guide but meant to be left behind like a child leaves behind print for cursive writing.

Alastair continues by giving us his view of history.

In the OT we see God directing the flow of history for the purpose of maturing His covenant people. He moulds and transforms His people through a number of powerful events and experiences. He builds up His people and then breaks them down, in order that they might be refashioned into something newer and more mature.

I agree that God directs the flow of history, and that history is about the covenant people of God. What I disagree with is the view of history that Alastair carefully unfolds in the rest of his post. I do not believe the pattern of the Bible is one of breaking down in order to build up into something bigger and better as if the church were 6 Million-Dollar Man who was broken down, but rebuilt into something better.

What I am arguing for is a view of the church that sees the church as the center piece of history, but does not see the church as fundamentally immature or in need of growing and maturing. I believe that God has given the Church all it needs in Christ and the Spirit. We do not need to mature past the apostles. Instead, we should imitate them as they imitate Christ, to paraphrase Paul. God’s direction of history is not one of breaking down in order to rebuild it better and more mature, but the history of the church is one of God ‘Handing Over and Delivering.’ This is the pattern I see laid out in the Bible, perhaps no where more clearly than in the book of Judges. The people (read the church) did what was right in their own eyes (read abandoned God), and God handed them over to their enemies. Then the people cried out to God (read repented and returned to God), and he sent them a deliverer. Then came peace until the people repeated step one. Some interaction with Alastair’s biblical work here is in order. Alastair argues:

He reforms the people under the leadership of Moses and elders and then later forms them into a priestly nation around the worship of the tabernacle. He settles them in the land as a group of tribes under the leadership of judges. Later He breaks apart this order in various ways. The tabernacle order is gradually dismantled and a united kingdom is formed under Saul and David. God later causes the kingdom to be split and begins to form new communities around the prophets. . . . Through this process the people of God changed radically and became something quite different from what they were at first.

With respect I disagree. First, I do not think this completely fits with the history given to us in the Bible. I agree that Moses and elders ran Israel, but I disagree that they were removed or that the forming of Israel into a priestly nation removed the elders from leadership at all. Do we not see Joshua rule with the elders of Israel (Joshua 23:2, Judges 2:7)? Not just elders but judges as well (Joshua 24:1). The Judges do not replace the elders of Israel either as we see them operate (Judges 11:5, 21:16, Ruth 4:4). We even see the elders during the United Kingdom (1 Samuel 15:30, 2 Samuel 3:17, 1 Kings 8:1). Even in the Divided Kingdom we see the elders (2 Kings 23:1). I fail to see the breaking down of this order at all.

Second, I do not think Alastair’s proposition does justice to the proclamation of God about one of these changes. Listen to what Samuel says when they end the time of Judges and institute the time of the United Kingdom. "But you have today rejected your God, who Himself saved you from all your adversities and your tribulations" (1 Samuel 10:19). This hardly sounds like a beneficial breaking down of an old order to be replaced with a new one of deeper trials and knowledge of oneself and of God. In fact, this appears to fit my understanding of ‘Handing Over and Delieverance’. Read the entire speech of Samuel at the coronation of Saul in 1 Samuel 12. He recounts the way God Handed Over and Delivered, and then goes on to say, "If you fear the LORD and serve Himi and obey His voice, and do not rebel against the commandment of the LORD, then both you and the king who reigns over you will continue following the LORD your God. However, if you do not obey the voice of the LORD, but rebel against the commandment of the LORD, the hand of the LORD will be against you, as it was against your fathers" (I Samuel 12:14-15)

Third, I think there could be confusion in Alastair’s argument between the Church and the Kingdom of Israel. As we all agree both a state and a church existed in OT Israel. The government of the state changed, but the government of the church did not. Neither the judges nor the kings had any priestly role. They did not offer sacrifices, nor did they operate the tabernacle nor the temple. The few times that we see the political leaders interfere in the church, we see God condemn it as sin. Gideon and Uzziah come to mind as good examples. Saul murdering the priests also serves as a good illustration that the Kingdom of Israel and the Church were not one and the same. How the unfolding of a different form of government for the state of Israel leads to a radical growth for the church needs to be explained before Alastair’s theory can be adopted.

One might be wondering how does this affect anything. Well, I think the difference between Alastair’s model of a Church Growing into Maturity and my model of a Church going through ‘Handing-Over and Deliverance’ has several implications. Not the least of which is a rejection of Alastair’s argument that "a reversion to the more simple worship and structures of a past age can be a step in the wrong direction". When the church repents and is Delivered, they are returning to the Faith once delivered to all the Saints, not growing into a newer more mature understanding of themselves and God. The problem with the church and with us is sin, not immature ignorance. Again look at the book of Judges. The people sinned by whoring with false gods, and what they needed is to repent and return to the one true God. No development can be seen in their theology after each of these experiences. Look at David in I Samuel 11-12 and Psalm 32 and 51. David did not need to mature and learn something new about God, he just needed to return to God and repent of his sin. David knew adultery was sin. All Israel knew adultery was a sin. Yet David sinned, was Handed Over and repented and was Delivered. The same pattern that I believe runs through the pages of both the Old and New Testaments. Alastair applies his view:

If we truly believe that God’s guidance of history hasn’t ceased and that He is still moulding and forming, breaking down and reforming, His people through historical events we will have new perspectives with which to view these sorts of events.

I do believe that God continues to guide his church, but I do not follow the ‘Breaking down in order to mold into something better’ paradigm. Thus, Alastair and I are going to evaluate Church History through a completely different lens. Alastair’s paradigm makes him reject the idea that the Reformation was simply a rejection of false innovations in doctrine and practice and a return to a more Biblical model of the church. Such a view for Alastair is too simplistic, and reality is more complex. On the other hand, if Alastair’s historiography is wrong, then so too is his understanding of the Protestant-Rome split during the Reformation. Thus, the debate about the Reformation, future Ecumenism between Rome and Protestantism, as well as any denomination is wrapped up in one’s view and understanding of history. Sadly, many of the modern debates (like Federal Vision) are underpinned by differing historiographies. It is a subject that really could use more debate, refinement, and discussion. I know that I could sure use it.

Rev. Meyers and Development

Jeffrey Meyers has a post about Sola Scriptura in which he has hit the nail on the head, at least concerning the main point of contention, in my point of view. I believe the central tenant of any of these controversies, whether it is New Perspectives on Paul, Padeocommunion, or the Federal Vision, is Theological Development. Rev. Meyers states,

the reason so much of this is resonating with people is because the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century confessions and catechisms are no longer sufficient guides for the modern church.

Rev. Meyers outright admits that the Reformation Confessions are not good guides for modern believers, that the 21st century Christian is lost without a sufficient guide if he follows the 17th or 16th century creeds. (By "lost," I mean theologically, not eternally.) Let us look at an example of this theological lostness that results from dependence on old, outdated creeds:

The chapter [in the WCF] on the covenant, for example, is filled with problems. So much progress has been made in the last century on the biblical theology of the covenants. There are still things to be learned from the Bible, which necessitates updating and correcting our theological formulations.

Here is the assertion that we cannot miss. The new views on covenant theology are "progress." The reason we should abandon the Reformation creeds is we have progressed beyond them. New insights from new ideas about epistemology or new theories about Judaism or new outlooks on the world from our modern technology have made the old 16th century mindset a problem. The point is clear. John Calvin, Wolfgang Capito, Peter Vermigli, and Ulrich Zwingli did not understand the covenant rightly because they did not know enough. Part of the Bible was closed to them because they had not progressed sufficiently. Or maybe the world had not developed enough, and the Reformers were victims of the times. Either way, Meyers’ point is that the Bible is going to hold new truths for every generation, and usually it will hold new truths that were considered errors in previous generations. This view of history is fundamentally Hegelian and evolutionary: truth develops, progresses, or unfolds as history moves along. In Rev. Meyers’ worldview, we can stand on the shoulders of those who came before, but we can never stand with them.

This, I believe, is the main point of contention. This is why Bishop Wright is so popular, as well as Norman Shepherd and anyone else that comes up with a new view of things. We should be debating whether or not the new views of covenant are a progress/evolution or a devolution. Is it possible that a 1st century Jew could read the gospel of John and discover the same truth that a 21st century Christian could discover, are they differing truths or even tangential truths because the world they lived in was different? Do we believe God’s truth is the same to any and every generation, or do we believe it unfolds a little more for each successive generation?

More Meyers and More Development

Rev. Jeff Meyers has a very able bodied defense of doctrinal development. He states his case in very well written and thoughtful essay. He expresses his views well when he comments

I'd want to insist that even the things that might be genuinely new (e.g., I think Peter Leithart and Jim Jordan have truly broken new ground in several areas over the years) are essentially organic outgrowths of the tradition.

He goes on to tell us about new exegetical insights formed over the years.

the whole idea of a "new perspective" is that we are looking at the same old stuff, but from a new angle. Since it's the same stuff, we're not going to come up with anything that's totally earth shattering, brand-spanking, overturns-everything-I-ever- believed new. But since it is, nevertheless, a new perspective, we're going to see things there that we never saw before. . . . It opens up new avenues of application. It brings together aspects of the text where the connections were unclear before.

It is this aspect of the Federal Vision movement that I believe unifies it as a movement. It is this aspect that I believe does not get enough attention. We should be examining this claim in the light of Scripture for this is the claim that underpins the rest of their theology. I believe in this view of theological development there are several troubling aspects.

1. An implicit historical superiority of the modern age. I am not trying to glorify the past or say that those in the 16th century were better Christians. I am saying that neither are we better Christians than those who lived in the 16th century or before. Those before us did not have all sorts of unclear connections or blank spots that our new insights from history, exegesis, and technology have allowed us to fill in. For example, many have accepted the ‘New Perspectives’, which arise from a new understanding of First Century Judaism. Thus, our modern greatness has given rise to a new understanding of the Bible in light of such knowledge. Should we take our modern word, or the word of men like Ignatius, who knew first century Jews? (Ignatius warns often of Jewish legalism – see Epistle to the Magnesians chapters 8-10).
2. Based on a Hegelian model of reality. Peter Leithart baffles me with this post. He commends the Philip Schaff’s Priniciple of Protestantism, but wishes there was less Hegalianism in it. This is the book that admits up front that "The idea, unfolded in comprehensive and profound style particularly by the later German philosophy, that history involves a continual progress toward something better, by means of dialectic contrapositions, is substantially true and correct". How can we accept the superstructure or the results if the foundation is wrong? Can we trust such a view of history?
3. Seeming denial of truth. This flows out from Hegelian concerns. If theological development is true, then how can one ever know if what he believes is true? Is his new perspective true? Is it the next step in the synthesis chain or is it a self-deluded jump to mold the bible and God into our image? Where does one turn to discover the answer? Both sides point to the Bible, they simply define the words differently on account of new insights. They cannot turn to those who have come before them for it violates the very spirit of theological development. Truth remains elusive, unreachable, and unknowable.
4. Systematic theology becomes useless. This admittedly is less of a concern, but worth point out since Rev. Meyers makes the comment that it is a conservative disciple by nature. Each new insight requires a complete reworking of systematics to fit in the new info, and by the time that is done, it is time for another new info. If theological development becomes the norm, then systematics, like creeds which are a systematical exercise, will become the enemy. It is a discipline that holds thought and theology back.

I put this points out there for discussion because my denomination, the RCUS has been through this before. Theological development tore the RCUS apart beginning in the 1840’s. It gained control and the result is the modern day United Church of Christ. The UCC is united by only one thing, and that is the fact that nothing is to be held for too long. All should be thrown out, like

Hatred for the Past

I just had to post a comment from Rev. Meyers that can be found in the comments to article under previous discussion.

1. The fact that REFORMED churches are still clinging to a 500-year old document is evidence of our loss of theological vitality.

2. The Westminster standards were written to answer the pressing issues and questions for 17th-century people - mostly English speaking people, too. This is fine. Confessions and catechisms are supposed to speak to the culture and use the language and conceptual categories familiar to people in order to disciple them in the biblical faith. But we no longer live in the 17th century. Duh.

3. Does anyone really think that we will still be using the Westminster Standards 200 years from now? Yikes.

4. There's been a great deal of theological and exegetical work done since the 17th century. Just think of the work on the Trinity in the broader church, but also in our own Reformed circles the theological work done on the covenant. The best of that work needs to be proclaimed publicly in our confessions and catechisms.

5. Until we compose something contemporary we will continue to have people tempting us to accept some form of "living in the past" as the answer to modern problems. As if repeating Reformed scholastic definitions of terms is what the modern world needs.

Never before has such a clear case of Mercersburg Theology been laid before us. These 5 points are full of Historical and Theological Development, but also contempt for the past. Nothing shows the Federal Vision’s hatred of the past more than point number 1. Rev. Meyers is actually saying that there is no way people 500 years ago could have come up with quality of theology that we can today, even though they have access to the same bible. Theological vitality is tied to shedding off theologies of the past and coming up with innovative ideas. If it such a bad idea to be clinging to 500 year old documents as good theology, just think how awful it must be to read documents from the Middle Ages, or worse yet those poor simpletons that sat at the feet of the apostles. Poor Polycarp and Ignatius! What trash their letters must be! And the Nicene Creed? Utterly useless. Just look at point 4 if you doubt Rev. Meyers argues that way. We have improved the doctrine of the Trinity and have better exegesis because a few guys now know what Judaism really looked over 19 centuries ago.

Charles Hodge once said of Philip Schaff’s Theological Development that it would cause people to always see an evolution of and never a possible devolution from the gospel. Could there be any clearer proof than Rev. Meyers’s point number 1?

Solid Rock or Shifting Sand

Jeff Meyers tries to answer the question I have been dying to know about the Federal Vision. How can one advocate changing the standards (especially the Westminster) to fit the new insights of Biblical Theology, and then still claim early Reformed writings back up your point of view? Either it is a new insight, or it is not? Which is it? Sadly, Rev. Meyers fails to give an adequate answer. He tries to tell us that it is both new and not new, which ducks the question. Then he states,

Some of the terminology and phraseology is new. I'd admit that. But again, this should be no problem. That's one of the great things about "system" confessional subscription. We don't bind ourselves to a particular forms of words, just to the overall content. So we have freedom to reformulate biblical truth for the context in which we're called to minister.

This is a telling answer. What Rev. Meyers is arguing is that the system is what is important, not the content. This is how one argues for changing the Standards, but can still claim to be a part of that ‘system’ or tradition. Rev. Meyers would have us believe that the system remains unaltered even if all the words in the system are changed. Thus, one can change the meaning of ‘elect’ or ‘justification’ or the meaning of baptism and the supper, perhaps even the meaning of the Regulative Principle of Worship, and the system will remain the same.

Now, I think where Rev. Meyers and I will disagree is on the affect of reformulating biblical truth. Rev. Meyers thinks it does not affect the system of doctrine, and I believe it does, at least the way it is being done now by the Federal Vision proponents. It is one thing to speak confessional truths in a language and manner that is understandable by your audience, it is another to speak in a manner that is understandable to your audience, but contradicts the confession. The first, I believe, is ministering biblical truth in a particular context, and the second is reformulating biblical truth for the context.

Meyers goes on in his blog to accuse those who oppose the Federal Vision of “cultural imperialism.” He is saying that those who want to remain faithful to the Standards are stuck in a by gone cultural, and refuse to see how one must reformulate the message to fit the modern culture. Rev. Meyers wants to change the message to fit with the changing times, not only for the needs of the audience, but also for the advances in Biblical Theology. After all, changing the message does not affect the system for Rev. Myers. Thus, again, Philip Schaff’s Principle of Protestantism rears its ugly head. The dialectical movement of doctrine throughout history is what Myers is ascribing to in his post. One cannot hold to the doctrine of the Reformation because the Reformation was a previous stage of development, and it would be ridiculous to cling to that which history has past by. The system is more important. And the system for Rev. Myers is not what the Westminster or the Three Forms teach, not any more. Rev. Myers holds to a system that contains internal change in a movement toward a fianl synthesis.

The debate over the Federal Vision is not just about justification or the sacraments, as Rev. Meyers rightly points out. It is also a debate about whether or not the truth is knowable, whether or not it is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Is the doctrine of the church a solid rock upon which to build, rock that can be written down in Confessions and trusted forever, or is it shifting sands that blow and move around with the times.

Reformed Ecumenical Madness

Closely connected with what has just been said, is the last and most important point to be presented. I mean, the bearing of this view of Church History on the great work of Christian Union - Schaff. What is Church History? Pg. 122

This was a bold prediction made by Philip Schaff in one of his early writings about Historical and Theological Development. Charles Hodge warned at the time that this would make people see every innovation "the growth of orthodox dogma, never a possible devolution from the Christian gospel." Hodge was proven a prophet indeed. For Schaff’s statement helped merge the old RCUS with the Evangelical Lutherans to become the Evangelical Reformed Church and then later the United Church of Christ. This current controversy over the Federal Vision is a revival of Mercersburg Theology, and has brought with it Scahff’s view of history, and consequently his view of Christian Union. This can be clearly seen in two areas:

First the view on Christian union appears in their demands for denominations to accept divergent positions on justification, sacraments, and even the use of creeds and confessions as part of the Reformed Heritage. They want to co-exist despite these major differences, even claiming that such things should fall under the the liberty of conscience.

Second, it can be seen in the leaders of this movement accepting with open arms modern evangelical trends. John Armstrong shows this in his treatment of the Emergent Church movement, Pentecostal ideals, and even borderline Name and Claim it messages like that ofJoel Osteen, where he declares that he formerly would have joined people like Michael Horton in critiquing the bad theology, but now appreciates all things. Andrew Sandlin is not much different and has a habit of calling Roman Catholics his Christian brothers and sisters. An increase in appreciation for non-Reformed and non-Protestant traditions can be seen all throughout the internet, as the followers of these principles put into practice the logical result of the Federal Vision, Reformed Catholicism, Shepherdism, a revival of Mercersburg Theology, or whatever one wants to call it.

It seems to me that the Reformed community will have to deal with these movements one way or another. The principle ‘Always Reforming’ must be upheld, but it does not mean ‘Always evolving’ as some claim, but rather it means 'Always remaining re-formed according to God’s Word’, lest we devolve back into a salvation by works.

Blog #1 - John Armstrong

John Armstrong has a new blog. And not surprisingly he has already made some surprising comments. One of his first efforts is to proclaim ideology is bad. He warns both the left and the right that they are too stuck on their ideology, and Christianity needs to move in a new direction, one separate from ideology. Here he quotes a friend favorably:

The church in our time can only become truly prophetic when it awakens to the reality of the ideological temptation. Only when it successfully begins resisting the beguiling promise of ideological support will it be free to speak the Word of God with power and boldness.

Now, he does not define ideology, but why would anyone be opposed to a belief system based on deeply held ideas? I wish Rev. Armstrong would have defined what he means by ideology. Should we not have a Christian ideology? I have to admit that I am clueless on how this quote is commendable.

It seems to me that Armstrong has allied himself with the Philip Schaff school of history. Stay away from those who have ‘ideology’, and instead take the middle road. Make the synthesis. Romanism and Protestantism are both wrong, and only the synthesis, presumably Reformed Catholicism, should be followed. I hope that I am wrong, and this is not a commitment to a constantly developing ‘Christian ideology’. I would greatly appreciate anyone telling me what he means.

Historical Arguments

I thought I would specifically deal with some of the arguments for doctrinal development. These men that hold to such a thing love to point to “examples” in history of doctrine developing. Their favorites are the doctrine of the Trinity, including the doctrine of Christ, and Justification, including the atonement. Sadly, one can hardly find a history book that is not polluted with this very idea. They speak of these doctrines as being ‘developed’ and finally agreed upon. In this post, I thought I would examine their arguments about the doctrine of Justification and atonement as developing.

Those who hold to development of justification and the atonement of Christ love to say, that Reformation’s idea on justification and the atonement cannot be necessary because no one held that until Luther. Thus, either one has to allow variant ideas on justification or one excommunicates every person prior to the Reformation. Yet, this is a false dichotomy. A choice that we need not make. While, people can trot out all sort of strange views from the saints of old about the sacrifice of Christ, it does not mean that the church at large understood Christ and his justifying work in such strange ways or that they had no clear understanding. For every Abelard, who believed Christ’s death was at best a moral influence upon us, there are 100 people, if not more, who rightly saw Christ’s death as a sacrifice. Athanasius states:

He became incarnate for our sakes, so that he might offer himself to the Father in our place, and redeem us through his offering and sacrifice . . . For Christ, our passover, is sacrificed.

Augustine continues along the same lines:

He offered sacrifice for our sins. And where did he find that offering, the pure victim that he would offer? He offered himself, in that he could find no other.

Southern France and Northern Italy seemed to always hold forth Protestant theology. Ambrose held that the “justification of the sinner and the remission of the sins were not human merit, but by the expiatory sacrifice of the Cross. (J.A. Wylie. History of Protestantism. Pg.19)” It seems that the church held to a correct view of justification and atonement from the beginning. It should be noted that Ambrose, Athanasius, and Augustine are three of the biggest doctors of the church. It seems likely that their teaching was followed widely. Now like many things the final verbiage was not settled. The Reformation drew important lines of distinction to make sure error was kept out. Yet, the Reformers themselves never thought of themselves as developing doctrine. They thought of themselves are returning to original Christinaity. They saw themselves are returning to the early centuries of the church. Calvin in the his Institutes quotes everybody from Augustine to Bernard of Clairvaux to prove his doctrine of justification is not an innovation or a development, but rather it is the plain truth that the church had always held.

Reactions to Report

Joel Garver makes my point for me. In his criticism of the Mississippi Valley Presbytery’s (PCA) report about the Federal Vision and New Perspectives on Paul he states that one of the major disagreements is about Theological Development. He states:

The question here is, in part, one of theological development within a tradition--some of that development looking back to parts of our heritage and confessional tradition that have been neglected, some of it trying to speak the Reformed faith to a world in which certain historically-conditioned and limited categories are no longer as meaningful, and some of it attempting to grow and develop our tradition in light of fresh insights into aspects of the biblical Gospel.

In the many discussions that will take place over the next months and maybe years, one that should take place is about theological and historical development. This underlying belief drives people to innovation in doctrine.

Here are a few other thoughts about the report from Federal Vision proponents or at least those who think the report is bad:

Mark Horne
Paul Owen
Doug Wilson
Auburn Ave. Presbyterian Church

And some who enjoyed the report:
Okay so I have not yet found any on the web. I will keep looking, and after I read this report, maybe I will comment on it. And maybe it will be positive.

A History Lesson

The next thing that needs to be examined in the Federal Vision controversy is the idea of Historical and Theological development. I believe that this belief serves as the underpinning for the entire system. To show this a little history lesson is in order.

Historical Development (which includes the idea of theology developing) was popularized by Philip Schaff, a professor of Church History in Mercersburg Theological Seminary in the mid-1800’s. He came to America from Germany where he partook of the theology of Hegel. Schaff, while verbally denouncing Hegel, used Hegel’s idea of Synthesis to make a model of church history. For Schaff history unfolded as a series of conflicts between a thesis and an antithesis, which formed a synthesis, which in turn fought with a new antithesis forming a new synthesis, and so on and so forth. The process did stop at some point, but until then theology changed as the process moved on. Schaff preferred the term develop or grow to change, but you get the idea.

Schaff and his friend and fellow professor at Mercersburg, John Nevin, promoted this idea through their teachings and writings. Schaff’s first speech was entitled the Principle of Protestantism where he unfolded these ideas. The RCUS brought him up on charges, but failed to convict him. Schaff continued with a book, What is Church History, and Nevin wrote one called, Antichrist the Spirit of Schism, in addition to several articles. Here they taught that the Reformation was the budding of the Middle Ages, and that what was needed now was a reunion of Rome and Geneva. A church with the doctrine of justification by faith, but with the sacramental teachings of Rome. This was the next and final synthesis for Schaff and Nevin.

It should not surprise us then to know that after the battles concerning history subsided with a Schaff victory, the next step in Mercersburg Theology was the sacraments. Nevin and Schaff went on with those who followed them to teach a Roman view of the sacraments, reform worship to make it follow a liturgy and look much more Roman, as well as redefine views on the incarnation, salvation including justification, and the church. Again, it all flowed from this first principle of Historical Development. Of course this story ends with the heirs of Schaff and Nevin merging the RCUS with a Lutheran denomination, and eventually with some congregational churches to form the United Churches of Christ, an extremely liberal church.

How does this tie into the Federal Vision? Well, the two groups are strikingly similar. The views on the incarnation, sacraments and salvation are almost the same, and worship in many of these churches tends toward the high liturgy that Schaff and Nevin would have applauded. So, it should not surprise us that we see a shared view of Historical development. When we read Doug Wilson’s book "Reformed" is Not Enough: Recovering the Objectivity of the Covenant we should understand that what Wilson means is that we need to find that synthesis between the subjective doctrines of the Protestant church and the objective things in the Roman church such as their sacramentalism. It should also not surprise us that we find some in this camp who actively seek an audience with Roman Catholicism to work toward union, such as those on the Reformed Catholicism blog. After all, Schaff himself said the end purpose of historical development is Christian union.

Catholicity?

One of the sights I like to visit, is Reformed Catholicism
I do not endorse their views in general. It is a sight that propagates the Federal Vision type theology. They prefer Reformed Catholicism. They desire to open a dialogue with all groups of believers even Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.
Now I like this sight because they are very honest. Straight forward. They don’t often try to dance around what they believe in order to fit the Confessional standards that they don’t much care for anyway. They are open about what they are doing and why they are doing it. It has some names you may recognize and some you may not. I plan to comment on some of their stuff in the future. Let me know just leave you with a quote from Philip Schaff:

Closely connected with what has just been said, is the last and most important point to be presented. I mean, the bearing of this view of Church History on the great work of Christian Union.

This helps prove my earlier point that Historical Development is important in the new Federal Vision scheme of things. We are seeing a re-emergence of Mercersburg Theology.

History, Justification, and the current controversy

I don’t think it can be denied that the Reformed Community is no longer unified. The new movement within the Reformed camp known as Shepherdism, Federal Vision, or Reformed Catholicism has divided most denominations and turned everything on its head. I will comment more on them in later posts I am sure.

What I wanted to touch on in this post is the importance of one’s view of history. Yes, history, and how that impacts this current controversy. I believe that the Federal Vision is not all that different than Mercersburg Theology, which grew out of Mercersburg Theological Seminary in the mid-1800’s. The Mercersburg movement started with Philip Schaff and John Nevin, and most accurately it started with Schaff’s speech about Historical Development. This is the idea that history unfolds via the dialectic of Hegel. Consequently doctrine in the church develops, grows, changes, and matures. This led to views that can be found today, baptismal regeneration, denial of the invisible church, grace actually present in the Lord’s Supper, denial of the active obedience of Christ, denial of Regulative Principle of Worship, and ending in a denial of creeds in general. All of which can be found in the Federal Vision in some form or other. So it might not surprise you to find out that these men, so far as I can see, hold to a belief in doctrinal development. Andrew Sandlin has been upfront about it in several places on the Internet. It can be seen in Doug Wilson’s book, "Reformed" Is Not Enough. This debate is important, and it saddens me to see many people fall prey to it, but I must say the aspect of Historical Development is not getting enough attention.