Peter Leithart's Principle of Protestantism

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. 

Response to Sandlin's De-Intellectualization Part 3

Part 1
Part 2

Sandlin response part 3

Another important thing to notice in Andrew Sandlin’s article is the latent episcopacy in his thought. Sandlin is in effect arguing for bishops despite the objection to such leaders on the surface. His article starts off commenting on a response to a book written by Carl Trueman. Trueman makes the following criticism of the book Young Restless and Reformed and the movement associated with that title.

First, there is the absence of the church at key points. Now, this criticism needs to be nuanced. All of those mentioned above are churchmen, and none would wish to see their conferences or their personalities becoming in some way substitutes for the institutional church. Yet the danger is always there whereby people become attached to the man rather than to the message or to the church. We are commanded to love the body of Christ; and our leaders are useful only to the extent that they are instrumental to that end.

Sandlin seems to agree with this attack, but feels it does not go far enough. This is when he launches into the his idea about the need for intellectuals and the lack of them in the list of people in this movement. Again note the criticism is that the leaders of this movement may draw a cult of personality rather than draw people into the body of Christ despite the fact that most of the leaders named by Trueman are by his own admission churchmen and pastors.

Sandlin gives a list of people that were leaders of the Reformed ‘Movement’ when he came into it, who were all intellectuals.

Greg Bahnsen, Donald Bloesch, Gordon Clark, John Frame, John Gerstner, J. I. Packer, R. J. Rushdoony, Francis Schaeffer, Cornelius Van Til.

Note these leaders: Bahnsen was ordained, but never a pastor a church as far as I can see. Bloesch taught at a school for his entire career (E&R and UCC if you are interested). Clark was a professor at Wheaton and Butler for most of his career. Frame is a professor for Westminster for most of his career and is currently at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando. Gerstner was a professor at Pittsburgh Theological and Knox Theological Seminaries. J. I. Packer is a professor most recently of Regent College in Canada, and never appears to have pastored a church. Francis Schaeffer was a pastor for about 10 years, but is most famous for his work at L’Abri, not his work in a pastorate. Cornelius Van Til was yet another life long professor. He taught at Princeton and Westminster Seminaries. R. J. Rushdoony is an exception as he served as a pastor and a missionary; however, he is again best known for his work as a philosopher and writer.

The point here is this. The very objection made by Trueman and expanded upon by Sandlin can be applied to Sandlin himself. Trueman warns against a cult of personality that will end up with follower of man and not followers of Christ implanted into his church. Trueman makes this critique of men who currently pastor churches like John Piper, Ligon Duncan, and Mark Driscoll. Sandlin feels the critique does not apply to the men of his generation like Bahnsen and Van Til, but why? The reason is because they are the intellectuals, and the current crop of men are not. The critique of having a personality cult does not apply to Van Til, Bahnsen, Clark, and Schaeffer because they taught other people ideas and intellectual innovative ideas (according to Sandlin), and they did not ‘shepherd’ (we have seen what Sandlin thinks of that)

I am not saying that Sandlin is against pastors or against the local church. By no means. But, I am saying that Sandlin clearly believes that the leaders of church as a whole ought to be above that. His argumentation appears that way. Here he is in his own words:

We now have in their [see the above list] stead Mark Driscoll, Mark Dever, Ligon Duncan, Joshua Harris, Tim Keller, C. J. Mahaney, Albert Mohler, and R. C Sproul — popularizers and pastors and effective leaders, but not intellectuals.

Sandlin then seems to think the church is only "a virile, creative, living, world-engaging intellectual force" when it is led by intellectuals who are not pastors. What other way is there to describe this than episcopacy? He may not want the actual church hierarchy to go with it, but effectively he wants a bishopric of the Teacher of the Theology. Only under their guidance and leadership can the church then become effective. Sandlin is actively arguing that the church needs Intellectual Bishops to led the church in a direction that will make it an effective force in the world.

This is neither the time nor the place to argue presbyterian from of church government, but it is the time to point out what Sandlin argues for. He is not really against personality cults. He is just against them if the personalities are pastor popularizers.

Sandlin response part 2

Part 1

The next thing I want to point out about Sandlin’s article, The De-Intellectualization of the Reformed Movement, is the complete and utter lack of respect if not out right contempt for the “pastor”. Sandlin is arguing for more giant intellectuals, and that is okay to want giant intellectuals, public intellectuals, but it is not okay to spurn the pastors of the church in the process. This statement is the first hint that something is amiss.

We were not "shepherded" into the movement; we were tractor-beamed into it by the force of ideas.

I do believe that some people come to the Reformed faith because of the consistency of it logically, or because they see the ‘force of ideas’ that are coming out of it. But does that mean we should mock or put scare quotes around those who were ‘shepherded’ into the Reformed church? Certainly not. Can we not minister to people in different ways? Not everyone is the same. I do not need to prove that the Bible favors shepherding people. That really ought to go without saying.

The critique from Sandlin gets more specific in his last section entitled, ‘The Pastoralization’. That entire section is a derision of pastors. Sandlin means to specifically attack the modern leaders of the Reformed Church who are in his mind Pastors or popularizers, but his attack reveals more than that.

The pastoral concerns — concerns, to be sure, from a Reformed perspective — will predominate. The life of the mind will be pushed to the periphery. Calvinism will be reduced to the institutional church, to the "5 Points," to devotional books, to seventeenth-century reprints. It will become therapeutic recovery for exhausted and jaded Arminians. What it will not be is a virile, creative, living, world-engaging intellectual force.

While it is nice he admits pastoral concerns are nice, he separates completely the pastoral concerns from the life of the mind. And this is how I think his attack goes to far. If he thinks that Popularizers are not good for the church as a whole fine. But this attack is not upon popularizing the message. The only fragment of a sentence that can be seen as an attack on popularizing is the ‘5 Points’ comment, which he explained earlier was a term of derision for those that over simplify Calvinism. Devotional material cannot be seen as bad. Should not leaders produce devotional material. Should not pastors be devotional? Is teaching others to be devotional a bad thing? Is it a good thing that Sandlin approves of intellectual leaders who could not write a devotional book if their life depended upon it? I do not think so. I can agree that the church should not be mainly a place of recovery for jaded Arminians, but how can one object to the church being a refuge for such people? I am not sure, but Sandlin appears to object. His comment about the 17th century reprints actual belongs in his earlier paragraph, and his attack on the institutional church is just confusing? Should we be encouraging the non-institutional church? What is it that we do not like about churches? One can only assume it is because they are too ‘pastoral.’

Sandlin then continues his assualt and goes overboard once again.

We should not be surprised that this reduction of Calvinism should occur in a deeply postmodern age — an age that eschews rigorous thinking and sharp distinctions, that delights in "community" and warm emotions, that craves not truth but "relationships." In this way, despite their antipathy to postmodernism, the new non-public intellectual pastoral Calvinists reflect a concession to today’s "postmodern turn."

Now it is true that post-modernism hates truth and prefers relationships. But does that mean that relationships and truth are really against one another? No, of course not. The church can have both, and should have both. Of course intellectual leaders and book writing can only have truth and has nothing to do with relationships or community. However, the bible has different views. We are commanded to come together and worship and not neglect the communion of the saints so that we can provoke one another to good works (Hebrews 10:24-25). It seems the author of Hebrews believes that relationships and community provoke people to good works in their life. Their life in the world. Sandlin of course disagrees:

How can we have a virile, creative, living, world-engaging intellectual force when we lack virile, creative, living, world-engaging intellectuals

Again Hebrews seems to answer this question at least in part with community and relationships. Sandlin thinks such ‘pastoralization’ a bad idea.

Sandlin's De-Intellectualization: A Response Part I

Andrew Sandlin has written a blog called, The De-Intellectualization of the Reformed Movement. It is a piece that deserves attention and probably will receive several responses from me at least because of the many things within it that deserve full treatment by all men.

I do want to say right off the top that I am not against intellectuals or the church having rigorous thinking. I think Sandlin and I would define intellectual very differently, but I understand and appreciate his point that the church needs serious thinkers to interact with the culture at large.

That being said, I disagree with almost everything else said in the blog/article. Let us start with what everyone is expecting me to say: this is pure blooded theological development. I have long thought Sandlin is the most honest and up-front about his holding to theological development that is similar to Schaff. Sandlin again makes that clear here. He starts it in the very title by making sure he always refers to it as the Reformed Movement rather than Reformed Theology or the Reformed Church or the Reformed Tradition. All of that is pushed aside so that we know to be truly reformed means to be moving into new theological ideas all the time. He praises the idea of theologians doing ‘paradematic science’ which he defines as:

"Paradigmatic science," on the other hand, is a landscape-altering scholarship that rearranges the scholarly data into a new model or way of looking.

What Sandlin advocates is a completely new way of looking at the Bible or at Christ or the world through Christ or something. He leaves it a little unclear, but what he misses is the people who took Christianity and jumbled it up, changed it up, twisted it up, and said "here a new theology." To Sandlin that is the heritage of the Reformation. I could not disagree more. Sandlin goes on to bemoan the fact that

The latter [Van Til, Rushdoony, among others], creative thinkers, were, in one way or another, reshaping the theological landscape. The former [Scott Clark, Lig Duncan among others], plodding thinkers, are today trying to get the landscape back to what it looked like before the creative interlopers came along and messed up the lawn.

Sandlin glorifies the ‘creative thinker’ as if the Bible needs to be viewed creatively. If we need to reshape what the Bible teaches every generation or maybe even more often. When we see this love of theological development in Sandlin, it becomes easy to see how this undergirds the modern movements toward Theonomy and why so many theonomists continued on into the Federal Vision. And one can see why Norman Shepherd is beloved. They crave the new. Anyone who comes along and preaches a new way of doing ‘Christianity’ will be the champion. Those who desire something new will continue to move with any new thing because the newness is itself a good virtue. Not following new things is a sad misplaced staleness which Sandlin insults as plodding thinking. He continues his backhanded assault.

First, the bright younger leaders, lacking the intellectual firepower of their immediate predecessors, retrench in a scholastic orthodoxy, taking refuge in the older confessions, wary of the speculation, innovation and daring that characterized those predecessors and committing themselves to policing the ranks of all heterodoxies — real or imagined.

Listen to the insults and see what he is actually insulting. Yes, he is insulting everyone who is not following some new trend and some people are specifically named. But look at what else he insults. "They take refuge in the older confessions". The confessions themselves are insults. Who would want to cling to such ‘old’ (read ‘outdated’) relics. Only the wimps, the intellectual lightweights. The confessions are not good because they do not speculate, change, and innovate. This is very much like Nevin’s comment that they are a ‘necessary evil’. Once people use creeds to hold on to they have missed the point and become intellectual lightweights.

Where oh where do we see the Bible speak like this? Does the Bible invite us to innovate or does it say that it can be understood now and forever. "And all the glory of man as the flower of the grass. The grass withers, And the flower falls away, But the word of the Lord endures forever." (I Peter 2:24-25). Does the meaning of the Bible change or does it endure as a timeless truth to be held by all?
I cannot but help but think of Jeremiah 6:16, "Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein."

More to come

Sectarianism?

This quote from James Jordan says it all.

“The sectarian compares the weakness of other churches to his own supposed strength, and pronounces them apostate on that basis. The catholic notes the weakness of other churches, and because of that tries to work with them, and prays for them. The sectarian thinks history has ended; the catholic realizes that it has not. (If anything, by the way, ‘postmillennialists’ should be even more flexibly catholic than others, because they believe that history has a long way to go, and that theology and ecclesiology will be developing for centuries to come.)”
- James Jordan, The Sociology of the Church, pg. 59

I took this quote from The Liturgical Institute.

The sentence in the parenthesis is what needs pointing out the most. Theology and ecclesiology will be developing for centuries to come! That is a bold statement. Let me boil it down. It basically means that
1) James Jordan knows that Christ will not return for centuries to come, 2) that everything we know about Christ, the Trinity, salvation, the church, and the Bible are all wrong, 3) we need to be willing to jump on whatever new fad comes along.

Call me sectarian if you like, but that is clearly what he is saying. Some might come along and try to paint theological development as like ‘organic’ growth or ‘aging’ growth. They like to use the comparison of math. They argue as follows: ‘When you are young all you know is 2+2=4. But soon you learn division and then geometry and maybe even a little calculus. That never invalidates 2+2=4, but builds upon it.’ That is a nice try at a defense, but it is wrong. The whole idea of theological development is not based on a math model, but on Hegel’s dialectic model. Where the thesis and the antithesis make a new synthesis. The original thesis and antithesis are now both wrong. They are not built upon, they are left behind. So it is with theological development. The more honest thinkers will admit that (see Philip Schaff), but that is hard to come by today. The other reason the analogy with math breaks down is because of the nature of theology. Justification by Faith Alone is invalidated if add works to it. It is no longer justification by faith alone. One can change the definition of the word ‘faith’ or the word ‘alone’, but it still invalidates the original claim, and it does not build upon it.

I am tired of people telling me that the church is ignorant and needs a few centuries to grow up. The truth is the truth yesterday, today, and forever.

A Response to Mercersburg as an Inoculation against Rome

Every now and then something really astounding is published on the web and one just has to comment on it. Mark Horne has done just that with his post about an inoculation against Rome. Rev. Horne claims that Philip Schaff’s Principle of Protestantism is just that, a way to fight against Rome. Horne rightly points out that Schaff provides a defense of Justification by Faith and also attacks William Pusey, but Horne does not address the main point of the book. Schaff and Nevin, which Horne recommends at the end of the post, are the furthermost thing from an inoculation against Rome, rather they are smaller doses of Romanism.

Here are some important things to remember about Mercersburg, Schaff, and Nevin that show Rev. Horne to be wrong.

1. Schaff defends justification by faith alone with one hand and takes it away with the other. Remember the point of his book is to show that the principle of Protestantism is not justification by faith alone, but rather a principle of development. In fact, he argues that the next step is a reunion with Rome where doctrines like justification by faith alone are merged with elements from Roman worship, like the altar, that implicitly deny that very doctrine. Thus, one can truly question whether or not Schaff defends justification by faith alone in that book, or whether he holds to justification by faith only until the next development is ready, which is a question that must be asked of Schaff when one follows his reasoning on theological development.
2. Nevin seriously considered converting to Roman Catholicism. This is something that is admitted by Schaff himself of his close friend. I find Nevin hard to believe as an antidote to Romanism if he almost went over to it himself. A point ignored by D.G. Hart in his whitewash of Nevin.
3. Many students that sat under Schaff and Nevin converted to Romanism and credited Schaff and Nevin for their conversion.
4. Nevin openly admits that his theological system is a different one from the 16th century pulpit based system and they are at odds with one another.
5. These men were considered unreformed by a large segment of the Reformed world during their own day. The Dutch Reformed broke communion with the Reformed Church in the United States because of the teachings of Nevin and Schaff. Hodge clearly held that Nevin was not reformed on the sacraments, and many within their own denomination accused them of being unreformed on a variety of topics. Take Benjamin Schneck’s work entitled Mercersburg Theology: Inconsistent with Protestant and Reformed Doctrine. Or you could listen to Joseph Berg claim that Nevin was a Nestorian, or the Philadelphia Classis accuse Schaff of holding to a Roman-type view on a Middle State between life and death (which by the way he held and taught at Mercersburg). One could go on for hours.

At the very least, Mercersburg Theology is not a inoculation. At best it is non-reformed attempt to merge two incompatible views. At worst it is a train that leads right to the Tiber river. Let me correct that. At worst it is a recipe to view theology as unimportant. See the result of Mercersburg Theology in the United Churches of Christ.

Antichrist and Nevin one more time

Mr. Bonomo has offered a response to my last post. In it he says that I have built a straw man in my caricature of Nevin. He offers two places where I am wrong in my thinking on Nevin. Let us look at them.

First, he argues that Nevin accepts religious denominations and confessional distinctions, and argues that confessional distinctions are only ‘evil’ when used by sects. He provides quotes from Nevin to back up his claim. I agree with Nevin that the distinction he draws between sect and denomination is "difficult to explain it clearly in theory, and still more so to apply it practically to existing religious bodies. (pg. 55 found in one of the ellipse of the quote provided by Mr. Bonomo.)" Nevin’s distinctions are fine and perhaps not really existent. Mr. Bonomo provides another quote showing that denominations are justified "in the present state of the world" and that they are "relatively necessary". This is because in the end Nevin holds they will all merge back into one church. Yet, how is this different than what I quoted Nevin as saying about confessional distinctions? Nevin there says they are "relatively good only" because they aid a higher catholicity. This is the same thing he just said about denominations. Is it not logical to assume then that denominations are also "an evil of the most serious magnitude" when considered in their own nature because they "violate the true idea of the Church"? It seems to me that Nevin’s theory is cloudy, which he himself admits, and that in practice he has not drawn a difference between sects and denominations. Further evidence can be found in his identifying markers of sects. For a denomination not to be a sect it must accept the church has the "same divine life . . . originally introduced in the incarnation of Jesus Christ" (pg. 43), which Nevin makes sure includes the idea of divine authority. This basically rules out every Protestant church that holds the Church itself is not the divine authority, but the Bible. He also goes on to endorse a sacramentalism and mediating role rejected by most Protestant churches, including his own during that time period. So while Nevin does give lip service to Mr. Bonomo’s point, even he admits it is fuzzy and even worse in practice. He uses the same terminology for confessional distinctions that he uses for sects, and he uses for denominations. Using then Nevin’s words, his presuppositions it seems impossible to conclude he thought denominations were anything but evil in their very nature and only serving a "relative good" as they open the way to history’s final stage of a reunified church.

Second, he argues that I have misunderstood Nevin when claiming that the spirit of antichrist is a separation from the church rather than a denial of doctrine. Mr. Bonomo tells us that it is ‘not either/or’ but rather ‘both/and’ for Nevin. In some sense I am willing to concede this point in as much as doctrine is involved in all things including a rejection of the church. Perhaps, I should make myself clearer. For Nevin the spirit of the antichrist is not a denial of the incarnation of Jesus, but a rejection and denial of the doctrine about the church being the continuation of the incarnation of Jesus Christ. This is where Nevin’s mystical union theory comes into play. As quoted eariler, Nevin holds that the "if we do not recognize in it [the Church] the continued presence of the same divine life, or new creation, that was originally introduced into the world by the incarnation of Jesus Christ" then we do not believe in "a real Church at all"(pg. 43). Thus, if one does not hold that the church is a continued divine incarnation with an objective efficacy to its sacraments, its worship, its pronouncements, then we are of the spirit of the antichrist. It is a denial of this doctrine about the church and a separation of that church that constitutes antichrist. This is not what John is speaking about when he speaks of denying that Jesus came in the flesh. The doctrine of Christ is not in view in Nevin’s spirit of the antichrist. Instead, it is the doctrine of the Church that makes one of the antichrist. So I do not think it a stretch to say for Nevin and for Mercersburg the spirit of the antichr should really be called antichurch.

Nevin and the Antichrist

Jonathon Bonomo has returned to posting on his Mercersburg Theology blog, and I am glad. While I disagree with Mercersburg Theology, blogs of this type and caliber are needed. He is in the middle of posting about Nevin and his view of sectarianism as the spirit of the antichrist. I do quibble with his first post as I believe that Historical Development is the foundation and driving force of Mercersburg Theology including mystical union Christology rather than vice-versa, but that is another conversation for another time. The second installment gives an overview of Nevin’s historical outlook on the subject. Mr. Bonomo admits Nevin’s view is highly dependant on Hegelianism. Yet, I wonder if Nevin himself contradicts his own Hegalianism in order to make his real point, that Puritanism is the anitchrist. Nevin had pointed to the two tendencies of antichrist materialism and supernaturalism. Every history of the church had a heresy in both directions. Bonomo explains the post Reformation heresies in Nevin’s view.

Rationalism and Sectarianism. These two heresies are yet more subtle than the previous forms of antichrist, but on this account perhaps even more dangerous. Rationalism is a naturalistic tendency while Sectarianism is supernaturalistic. Yet sectarianism, while beginning in a show of hyper-spiritualism, always without exception ends up as a base materialism:

Here we see Nevin begins by making Rationalism and Sectarianism on opposite ends of the spectrum as his Hegelianism demands, but ends up with them both on the same side leaving his Hegalianism needing a counterweight that is never produced. Sectarianism is supernaturalism that ends up in materialism. I believe this is a whole in Nevin’s own theory, but not the point of this post.

I believe Nevin has redefined the spirit of the antichrist to be not a doctrinal error concerning Christ as much as it is the act of separating oneself from the true Church. The Spirit of Antichrist for Nevin is leaving the church or at least leaving the Mercersburg principles of the church. The marks of the antichrist Nevin gives, which will be discussed in future posts by Mr. Bonomo, include things such as individual freedom, contempt for history and authority, rejecting the church as a supernatural institution, rejecting sacramentalism, rejection of mediation (by this Nevin means mediation of the Church over against subjective mediation), and other such things. It will be interesting to read his thoughts on these distinctions. However, to show what Nevin really thinks the antichrist’s spirit entails we shall let him speak.

In admitting moreover the necessity of confessional distinctions, we do not allow them to be good and desirable in their own nature. They are relatively good only, as serving to open the way to a higher form of catholicity than that which they leave behind; whilst in themselves absolutely considered, they contradict and violate the true idea of the Church, and are to be bewailed on this account as an evil of the most serious magnitude (pg. 56, Antichrist Anxious Bench/AntiChrist/Sermon on Catholic Unity. . . . We have no hesitation, then, in saying, that all redemption from the power of the Sect plague, must begin with a revival of true and hearty faith, in the ancient article of ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC CHURCH (pg. 67 caps in original).

We see a denial of confessional distinctions or doctrinal statements. These statements are evil when compared to the true nature of the church. They are something to be overcome. This makes the spirit of the antichrist something altogether different than a denier of doctrines or a contradictor of beliefs. What then does it mean to be the spirit of the antichrist? Nevin tells us in the second half of the above quote, it is splitting from the Church. It is not deviation from beliefs found in confessional distinctions that makes one an antichrist, it is separation from the Church. Less you think I overstate my case I shall give another quote.

As long as men are disposed to deny the existence of one catholic Church, or to place it in the negation and shadow as an invisible abstraction . . . it must be in vain to preach to them the evils of division and schism (Ibid., pg. 67).

Nevin here attacks the idea of the invisible church. The Church is the only objective standard by which to judge the antichrist, thus making schism not about doctrine but about church membership. This idea has profound consequences for one’s view of history, the place of confessions and doctrinal unity within a church, and one’s view of church in general. I look forward to future posts and hope for good discussion.

Jonathon Bonomo has returned to posting on his Mercersburg Theology blog, and I am glad. While I disagree with Mercersburg Theology, blogs of this type and caliber are needed. He is in the middle of posting about Nevin and his view of sectarianism as the spirit of the antichrist. I do quibble with his first post as I believe that Historical Development is the foundation and driving force of Mercersburg Theology including mystical union Christology rather than vice-versa, but that is another conversation for another time. The second installment gives an overview of Nevin’s historical outlook on the subject. Mr. Bonomo admits Nevin’s view is highly dependant on Hegelianism. Yet, I wonder if Nevin himself contradicts his own Hegalianism in order to make his real point, that Puritanism is the anitchrist. Nevin had pointed to the two tendencies of antichrist materialism and supernaturalism. Every history of the church had a heresy in both directions. Bonomo explains the post Reformation heresies in Nevin’s view.

Rationalism and Sectarianism. These two heresies are yet more subtle than the previous forms of antichrist, but on this account perhaps even more dangerous. Rationalism is a naturalistic tendency while Sectarianism is supernaturalistic. Yet sectarianism, while beginning in a show of hyper-spiritualism, always without exception ends up as a base materialism:

Here we see Nevin begins by making Rationalism and Sectarianism on opposite ends of the spectrum as his Hegelianism demands, but ends up with them both on the same side leaving his Hegalianism needing a counterweight that is never produced. Sectarianism is supernaturalism that ends up in materialism. I believe this is a whole in Nevin’s own theory, but not the point of this post.

I believe Nevin has redefined the spirit of the antichrist to be not a doctrinal error concerning Christ as much as it is the act of separating oneself from the true Church. The Spirit of Antichrist for Nevin is leaving the church or at least leaving the Mercersburg principles of the church. The marks of the antichrist Nevin gives, which will be discussed in future posts by Mr. Bonomo, include things such as individual freedom, contempt for history and authority, rejecting the church as a supernatural institution, rejecting sacramentalism, rejection of mediation (by this Nevin means mediation of the Church over against subjective mediation), and other such things. It will be interesting to read his thoughts on these distinctions. However, to show what Nevin really thinks the antichrist’s spirit entails we shall let him speak.

In admitting moreover the necessity of confessional distinctions, we do not allow them to be good and desirable in their own nature. They are relatively good only, as serving to open the way to a higher form of catholicity than that which they leave behind; whilst in themselves absolutely considered, they contradict and violate the true idea of the Church, and are to be bewailed on this account as an evil of the most serious magnitude (pg. 56, Antichrist Anxious Bench/AntiChrist/Sermon on Catholic Unity. . . . We have no hesitation, then, in saying, that all redemption from the power of the Sect plague, must begin with a revival of true and hearty faith, in the ancient article of ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC CHURCH (pg. 67 caps in original).

We see a denial of confessional distinctions or doctrinal statements. These statements are evil when compared to the true nature of the church. They are something to be overcome. This makes the spirit of the antichrist something altogether different than a denier of doctrines or a contradictor of beliefs. What then does it mean to be the spirit of the antichrist? Nevin tells us in the second half of the above quote, it is splitting from the Church. It is not deviation from beliefs found in confessional distinctions that makes one an antichrist, it is separation from the Church. Less you think I overstate my case I shall give another quote.

As long as men are disposed to deny the existence of one catholic Church, or to place it in the negation and shadow as an invisible abstraction . . . it must be in vain to preach to them the evils of division and schism (Ibid., pg. 67).

Nevin here attacks the idea of the invisible church. The Church is the only objective standard by which to judge the antichrist, thus making schism not about doctrine but about church membership. This idea has profound consequences for one’s view of history, the place of confessions and doctrinal unity within a church, and one’s view of church in general. I look forward to future posts and hope for good discussion.

We must not weary

There is a discussion going on over at Greenbaggins about the Federal Vision. The discussion is about whether or not critics of the Federal Vision ever understand the Federal Vision. But that is not what I want to talk about. The author (a friend of mine for full disclosure) the following comment:

You know, this is so amazingly tiring. This is why I am so tired of the whole wretched debate.

This is the comment that worries me. The Federal Vision was a hot topic for several years, worthy of a good round of debates. But now it is working its way through the often contentious church court system, and these power struggles make people weary. “This committee report is wrong”, “This committee is stacked and unfair”, and “Do I have to read another 40 plus page report and debate it on the floor of Classis?” all are wearisome to be sure. It naturally leads to feelings of wanting it all to go away and be settled once and for all. However, that will never be. This debate is around for the long haul. The Federal Vision already controls an entire denomination that has become a safe haven for those who practice the FV theology. Many churches in multiple denominations are spouting this theology. It is not something that is going to just go away. Weariness leads to acceptance for the sake of peace. Let me use a few historical examples.

The Reformed Church in the United States is a perfect example. The debate between Mercersburg and the Old Reformed began to really heat up around 1844. It was mostly in print and not a lot of church court work was done. It began to heat up in the church courts in 1854, and not counting a small time of unity when the focus was on another subject, the debate raged until 1878 when weariness won out. Nothing was solved, only a way to keep the peace was found. People often confuse the too. Finding a way to keep the peace is not the same as solving the problem. A Peace Committee came back with some proposals that asked both sides to give a little something up, but did not take any doctrinal stands one way or the other. Of course this really made the Mercersburg Side victorious and forty years later the Reformed Church merged with a Lutheran denomination except a small remnant in the Dakotas.

Another great example is the Great Awakening and the Presbyterian Church. In 1741, the New Side broke away from the Old Side and each created a competing Synod. Harsh words were exchanged and ministers felt “vexed to death” by the intrusions and disruptions in the church. In 1746, the Old Side Synod of Philadelphia lost an entire Presbytery to the New Side as the tension continued. Yet, by 1758 the weariness had set in. The two sides met, reunited on a Plan of Union without settling any theological debates. A few practical rules were laid in place and the two became one. Yet, within three years the same debate raged through the newly created joint Synod. The 1760’s are full of Presbyteries being demolished and Old Siders being placed so they remain minorities thanks to the New Side majority in the new Synod. Presbyteries split because of theology, and one presbytery withdrew completely. It was so bad that the Old Siders were again about to make their own Synod, and were in Britain raising money for it, when the American Revolution began. This unified feelings for a time. During the War the Old Side leaders died off, the British destroyed the Old Side ministerial institution, and the Old Side vanished. By 1788 they are a footnote in opposition to the formation of the General Assembly.

One could go on forever and discuss the Princeton conflict of the 1920’s and probably find hundreds of other examples where weariness won out over theology. This can never be allowed to happen in a debate that is of importance. Keeping or restoring the peace is not the same as solving the problem. Too often the church or at least church leaders weary of the disharmony and attempt to restore harmony by finding the quickest way to peace rather than deal with the theological issues head on. The RCUS wearied, instituted peace, and within a generation was on its way to becoming the United Churches of Christ, a very liberal denomination. The Old Side wearied, joined without theological union, and (in my opinion) instituted the fundamental tension between revivalism and confessionalism that directly led to the Old School/New School split of the 1800’s and in some ways still plagues the PCA and OPC today. The Church is called to be a pillar of truth and constantly remind people of the gospel. There are times we get tired and do tedious work, but we must never weary of presenting the gospel not only to those who are lost, but to those who err as well.

(I feel that I should add, I do not think that Mr. Baggins is advocating quitting, but his expression was a nice jumping off point.)

Mercersburg and the Church

The concept of the Church in Mercersburg is intertwined with the rest of theology, but we can see a few important features that differ from Reformed theology. Without any systematic theologies, we are left to put together the Mercersburg Theology for ourselves using the broad outlines given in Nevin’s letter describing the tenants of Mercersburg Theology. The theory of the church is perhaps best seen in Nevin’s Vindication of the Revised Liturgy. In this booklet we see Nevin using the foci of being objective and historical to drive his view of the church. The subjective, or not physical, seems to really bother Nevin and his theory allows him to make the Gospel objective in nature rather than subjective. I think all can agree that Jesus Christ was real and historical that what the gospel says is true and thus it is objective, but Nevin goes on to state that it would not pass out of the realm of existence. Enter the church into his theology. Nevin states

It is not enough for this purpose, to have memories only of what was once such a real presence in the world. ("Vindication" Catholic and Reformed: Writings of John W. Nevin, pg. 378)

This is where Nevin goes to ‘the Creed’, by which he means the Apostles’ Creed. He views the creed not as propositions but as describing the progress of grace in the world. Thus, for Nevin the place of the Holy Catholic Church in the Creed is essential. Nevin claims the church then is after the Incarnation as a necessary consequence of it, and is the only way in which the Holy Spirit can work. He openly avows the church as an article of faith, which ‘we believe in order to understand’.

If we are to hold fast the objective, historical character of what this work was first, and still continues to be, in His own Person, it cannot be allowed to lose itself in the agency of the Spirit under a general view; it must, necessarily, involve for us the conception of a special sphere; this likewise objective and historical; within which only (and not in the world at large), the Holy Ghost of the Gospel is to be regarded as working. This is the Church. (Ibid., 378)

If one remembers the Apostles’ Creed you will remember that the Holy Catholic Church comes between the Holy Ghost and the Forgiveness of Sins. Nevin argues that this placement is purposeful and a progression; thus, the Church must come before the forgiveness of sins.

So far as this goes, of course, it owns and confesses that the Church is a medium of communication between Christ and His people. They must be in the order of His grace, in the sphere where this objective working of His grace is actually going forward, and not in the order of nature, where it is not going forward at all (but where Satan reigns and has his own way), if the work of redemption and sanctification is to be carried forward in them with full effect. (Ibid., 380)

He goes on to explain how such a churchly theology must give a sacramental theology and that must give a liturgical theology. That can be left for another post, I think we have enough here to discuss already. I would like to make a few observations before opening up for comments.

The first observation is that the Heidelberg Catechism does not follow the understanding of Nevin. It seems to treat the Creed as a serious of propositions rather than a historical development as Nevin held. It also speaks of the Holy Catholic Church in Q54.

That the Son of God, from the beginning to the end of the world, gathers, defends, and preserves to himself, by His Spirit and word, out of the whole human race, a church, chosen to everlasting life, agreeing in true faith; and that I am, and forever shall remain, a living member thereof.

There is no indication of the Church standing between the people of God and Christ, rather it is simply the gathering of those people. Ursinus goes on under this question to discuss the idea of the invisible church, which the objective-historical Nevin rejects in his formulation. Ursinus does say that there is no salvation outside of the church, but rather than claiming this is because the Church is the medium of grace he states it this way:

Because those whom God has chosen to the end, which is eternal life, them he has also chosen to the means, which consist in the inward and outward call. Hence although the elect are not always members of the visible church, yet they all become such before they die.

Ursinus indicates there is no salvation outside of the church because God’s elect will always join the church. The phrase ‘no salvation outside of the church’ for Ursinus seems directed against those who want to claim salvation and remain apart from God’s people, rather than granting some special powers to the church over ‘redemption and sanctification’ as Nevin argues.

Second, Nevin’s historical argument from the Apostles’ Creed and the placement of the Holy Catholic Church is wrong. The ‘Holy Catholic Church’ phrase is not found where it is before the 3rd Century. The Antiochene churches omitted it completely, and Fulgentius places it at the end of the Creed. One also finds versions from Priscillian that put it prior to the Holy Spirit. These arguments undermine the extensive use of the Creed in Nevin’s argument (in fact many accused Nevin of placing the Apostles’ Creed above the Bible).

Of course there is much more to the view of the church of Schaff and Nevin, but it is time to open the post up for comments.

Neo-Mercersburgism or Old Romanism

I have long been stating that the current Federal Vision discussion is really the same discussion had by RCUS with Mercersburg theologians, primarily Philip Schaff and John Nevin. A new blog aids my point while inventing a new name (of which I am jealous),Neo-Mercersburgism. They call for a revival of six points of Mercersburg Theology. Here is number 1.

1. The primary life giving principle in the life of a Christian is the ministry of the Church; the Sacraments, the Word proclaimed, and fellowship in the body of Christ.

This statement does accurately reflect Mercersburg theology, and I think also shows why we need to reject Neo-Mercersburgism, just as we need to reject paleo-Mercerburgism. There is a lot to unpack in this statement, such as the placement of Sacraments before the Word, a very non-traditional ordering of the two, and very illuminating as well. However, the main point that needs to be noticed is that the "primary life giving principle" for the Christian is not Jesus Christ. In Neo-Mercersburgism, anything that we gain from Christ must be conveyed to us by the Church. Listen to the tract written by a Professor at Lancaster (a strong hold of old Mercersburg) last century.

All the benefits of Christ are received, not by faith, not through previous knowledge of our misery, not in the way of repentance and faith, but through baptism, and through baptism exclusively.

Here we see the idea that the primary life giving principle is not Jesus, nor faith, nor even faith plus repentance. It is baptism. The Christian is not to turn to Jesus for life, but to the church. I do not believe that I am overstating. For proof let us look no further than the third point of Neo-Mercersburgism.

3. The holy Eucharistic is the tie which (sic) binds together all believers in Jesus Christ throughout time and space.

What binds us together as believers? Is it all being members of the body of Christ? Is it the Holy Spirit? Is it the same Lord? Or the same faith? Is it even being baptized into the same God? According to Neo-Mercersburgism what binds believers together in Christ is the Eucharist. One should probably also unpack this statement as John Nevin would do and notice the claim that we are bound “in Jesus Christ”. The Eucharist is not mainly a way to bind us with other Christians, but a way to bind us in Christ. Our mystical union with Jesus makes our mystical union with each other. But that mystical union is not achieved through faith, but rather through the Eucharist, just as his benefits are not received by faith, but rather through baptism. Neo-Mercersburgism has supplanted faith with sacrament, and the Holy Spirit with the Church. Neo-Mercersburgism makes the comfort of the believer belonging to the church and taking the sacraments rather than belonging to Jesus Christ and having faith in Him. In this regard, Neo-Mercersburgism looks a lot like Old Romanism.

History Lesson for the Mercersburg Revival

As each denomination works through the Federal Vision issue, I think it useful to step back as see where the RCUS failed to deal with it in its more original form, Mercersburg Theology. I do believe that Federal Vision is really nothing more than a revival of the Mercersburg System, and in that respect the RCUS could have done the world a favor in the mid 19th century. The failure for the ‘Old Reformed’, as the opponents of Mercersburg where then called, was twofold.

First, the top down structure that grew in the RCUS. This really began with the creation of the seminary itself, and the accompanying rule that forbid any other place of education. It gave the seminary great power, and with it all of the seminaries proponents. As Mercersburg Theology grew and spread it seldom actually made its way to disciplinary or judicial action. This is because the machinery of a top down denomination was controlled by the proponents of the Mercersburg Vision. Philip Schaff was only put on trial once for his beliefs, and that time the trial was about to be declared out of order, but Schaff waived his rights in order to have the trail. He was declared not guilty, but more proof was found the next year, and the Philadelphia Classis renewed its charges. This time Schaff did not waive his right to have the Board of Visitors of the Seminary investigate the charges before any trail would take place. And while the Board of Visitors did give him a verbal slap, and made him promise to not teach such doctrines in the Seminary, no judicial action was ever taken. After that the Board of Visitors simply refused to hear any more complaints, and with the Board of Visitors rejecting complaints, no trial could take place. Within a few years large scale debates about Liturgy would take place that had John Nevin in print rejecting the theology behind a pulpit based liturgy, and no charges were filled. Why? Because the denomination was controlled the Mercersburg men. They did not have to have a majority to run the denomination, they only had to have control of the machinery, which they did. The Presidents were always Mercersburg men, the Board of Visitors was always Mercersburg Men, the mission boards, you name it, they controlled it. A lesson well worth remembering. In a top heavy denomination, like the PCA for example, it only takes a few key positions to be held, and it no longer matters who has the majority of churches, members, delegates. It is always unimportant.

Second, the Old Reformed types often quit rather than fight, especially in the early stages. For example, in 1822, only two years after the vote for a seminary had been answered in the affirmative, a group of ministers broke off to form the Free German Synod. These ministers may have been able to turn the tide, or at least significantly change the impact of the seminary that would eventually produce the Mercersburg Theology. By the time this group rejoined the RCUS, it was far too late. The early antagonists of the Nevin and Schaff also deserted when they appeared to be stopped. Joseph Berg, the one who brought Philip Schaff up on charges, ended up leaving to join the Dutch Reformed Church. In 1853, just as the Liturgy wars were heating up, the North Carolina Classis withdrew from Synod specifically because of the “heresies of Mercersburg”. Losing an entire Classis of ‘Old Reformed’ men hindered the ‘Old Reformed’ cause in the fight that ensued. The Civil War took away more Southerners, who generally opposed the Mercersburg movement.

In the end, the Mercersburg Theology won the day. They controlled the key positions in a top heavy denomination, such as the seminary, the President, and other various posts like missions, and publications. They also succeeded in discouraging political and theological battles, which eased their path to victory. These are lessons that every denomination should remember, not just as it examines the Federal Vision, but as it examines any controversial issue it faces.

High Church Calvinist

D.G. Hart’s John Williamson Nevin: High Church Calvinist is an interesting book. It is well written and easy to read. It is not a traditional biography, so do not expect to see the depth of Nevin’s friendship with Philip Schaff or discover what his married life was like. That was not Hart’s purpose in writing the book. It is more of a theological biography to show the reader the circumstances that aided Nevin in the creation of his unique brand of theology. The goal of the book is to show the reader John Nevin, and re-introduce him into the public world along with his theology, mainly the belief of the church as the mediator of grace. It is therefore a decidedly pro-Nevin biography.

I have several critiques of this book. The first is the scholarship of the book. I do this with great trepidation because Hart is an extraordinary scholar and historian. Yet, I felt that he neglected some major sources that should have been dealt with more carefully. I mentioned in a previous post that Hart fails completely to recognize the German Reformed Church known as the Reformed Church in the United States continues on today. He assumes the tradition disappears into the United Church of Christ, but that is simply untrue. I do believe that the book would have benefited by at least addressing the perspective of the continuing RCUS. You Shall Be My People, a book written to commemorate the 250th Synod of the RCUS in 1996, could have been consulted. Or even an interview with Rev. Robert Grossmann, who has written on the history of the RCUS and whose father led the Eureka Classis when it refused to merge and continued as the RCUS, would have been appropriate and helpful. It seems a good idea to define the German Reformed Tradition by talking to those who still speak German and minister in that church. I also think that James I. Good, a early 20th century historian in the RCUS, should have been consulted and his critique of Mercersburg Theology dealt with during this biography. Or at least references to Benjamin Schneck’s objections to the Mercersburg theology as outside of Protestantism. Both are listed in his biblographic essay at the end of his book, but he seems to write James Good off as a historian with a score to settle (pg. 258). Hart never concedes that Nevin may have been outside of the Reformed and Calvinistic traditions completely with his theology. He never really defends it either, and both Schneck and Good argue it rather well in their respective books. If Hart’s goals was to recommend Nevin to us, and I believe it was, then he needed to do a better job dealing with the actual controversy around his theology.

I also wonder if Hart completely sees Nevin’s High Church argument. Hart seems to argue for a return to the High Church conception of Nevin and then faults Nevin for neglecting preaching while he tried to re-emphasize the Lord’s Supper and Baptism. Hart thinks if Nevin had emphasized preaching he would have won some Old School Presbyterian converts. Yet, it seems to me that Nevin would never have emphasized preaching. In fact, Nevin has no trouble saying a pulpit-based liturgy is ineffective and a source of problems. Nevin argues for an altar-based liturgy as the only way the church can be saved. This is not a neglect of preaching by accident, this is a neglect of preaching on purpose. Hart seems reluctant to admit that Nevin openly wanted a return to an altar-based liturgy, which is clearly out of accord with the Protestant Reformation. Hart believes that emphasizing the preaching of the word would have still fit with Nevin’s theology of the church as a mediator of grace, and attributes this failure to Nevin’s obsession with sacramental theology. Hart’s critique on page 214 even says that the Reformation used the pulpit over the table, and not an altar. Nevin was clear that he wanted an altar, and that the Reformation was wrong. Preaching did not fit his view of the church as mediator of grace. The sacraments were objective and the preaching was not. Nevin’s High Church argument revovled around this point, at least in the Liturgical Controversy portion of his career. Hart seems to miss this point, and view it as an oversight in Nevin rather than a direct result of his theology.

The rest of my objections are more minor points of disagreement. Hart seems to cast dispersions on opponents of Nevin such as Bomberger and Berg as insignificant reactionaries. These men did not produce great scholarly works, but they were hardly insignificant. They were major pastors of influence within the church. Hart only views other academic challenges to Nevin as real challenges. I also think he underplays the victory of Mercersburg Theology. In fact, he concludes that it lost out after the peace commission finished in 1887. I would argue that Mercersburg won. Hart admits the Mercersburg Liturgy was allowed to stay, but it was no longer mandatory. This is not a defeat, but a victory for Mercersburg. The German Reformed Church’s merger with a Lutheran denomination that had an altar liturgy and a sacramental view closer to that of Mercersburg than to the Old Reformed is telling of who really won in the peace commission.

The book as a whole is good, but I do not believe presents every side of the controversy surrounding Nevin and his theology.

Schaff against Rome or against Geneva?

Rick Phillips at Reformation 21 gives us a quote from Philip Schaff about the evils of Popery or Romanism, and how it is not Catholicism. Schaff compares Catholicism to Judaism. Judaism pointed the way to Christ, and then after Christ became something altogether horrible. For Schaff so too did Catholicism. It pointed the way to the Reformation, and at Trent it became something horrible. It became Popery. While I agree Popery is wrong, I disagree with the reasoning Schaff gives. Schaff states, Popery never forgets and never learns anything, and can allow no change in doctrine (except by way of addition), without sacrificing its fundamental principle of infallibility, and thus committing suicide. It seems to me that Schaff is saying that Popery is wrong because it does not change its doctrines. Do we as Protestants want constant change in our doctrine? We ascribe infallibility to the Bible alone, but do we really want to say a church that refuses to learn and change is a church that is dead?

Rick Phillips seems appreciative of the quote because it does not pander to Romanism, which he thinks is a growing error in the church today. I believe this a somewhat thinly veiled reference to ECT and the Reformed Catholics of today’s churches. Yet, is this quote not exactly the sort of thinking that has led to Reformed Catholicism, and Federal Vision movements in today’s churches? Historically speaking Schaff and Nevin pandered to Rome by changing Protestant doctrines into more Roman Catholic ones. They argued for altar based liturgies, they did a lot of what could be considered pandering to Rome. I believe Rich Phillips has mistaken Schaff’s refusal to pander to the Pope and mistaken it for a refusal to pander to Rome. Perhaps even worse, he has missed the endorsement of Historical and Theological Development that is Schaff’s critique of the Pope. Unless we as Protestants are willing to sign on to Schaff’s ever changing doctrine as the principle of Protestantism, as he suggests, then we need to throw out Schaff’s critique, and hopefully one day clarify a better Protestant historiography

Relativism Revisited

It seems I am being accused of having made a logical fallacy in my last post. The fallacy of Post Hoc, the fallacy of using the fact that one event preceded another as sufficient evidence for causality. It apparently won me the ‘Whatever’ award of the week, for which I am very proud. It also generated a few laughs at my expense.

While I will grant that I did not connect all the dots in the last post, I do not think I have committed the fallacy in question. Even if the post was a bit sketchy, it does not necessarily follow that I am wrong. If I mistakenly assumed that my readers have an exhaustive familiarity with the Mercersburg Theology or the Federal Vision theology and its arguments, I apologize. Allow me now to connect the dots for everyone now.

Philip Schaff admits that the great and most important work of theological development is Christian union, the reuniting of all the churches, including the Roman Catholic, under one banner. Christian union is the ultimate endpoint of Schaff’s line of thinking by his own admission in his book, What is Church History? John Nevin makes clear his positions on church creeds and confessional distinctions in his book, The Anti-Christ by saying:

In admitting moreover the necessity of confessional distinctions, we do not allow them to be good and desirable in their own nature. They are relatively good only, as serving to open the way to a higher form of catholicity than that which they leave behind; whilst in themselves absolutely considered, they contradict and violate the true idea of the Church, and are to be bewailed on this account as an evil of the most serious magnitude

Nevin does not want anything to do with distinctions, especially confessional distinctions. They are inherently evil in his view. The people should rise above such distinctions. They have no importance except to weight us down. Hopefully my readers can begin to see here the seeds of theological relativism. It is no surprise to find the generation after Schaff and Nevin attempting to merge with any church that will have them. They were rejected by the Presbyterians prior to their successful uniting with the Evangelical Lutheran denomination. The merger with the Evangelical Lutherans allowed the Lutheran creeds to stand alongside the Heidelberg Catechism in the new denomination, the Evangelical Reformed. The new denomination’s constitution stated, "Wherever these doctrinal standards differ, minister, members, and congregations, in accordance with the liberty of conscious inherent in the Gospel, are allowed to adhere to the interpretation of one of these confessions." By this the new church allowed even individual members within the same congregation to have different opinions on the use of images, the efficacy of sacraments, and other doctrines. Rev. Peter Grossmann said it well, "When one body claims to hold equally to three conflicting confessions, we can be sure that there will either be disunity if doctrine is taken seriously, or even worse there will be the conclusion that doctrine is unimportant." The Mercersburg Theology led to the latter. Schaff’s drive for organic union and Nevin’s disrespect for confessions allowed men to say, when theologies differ, just decide for yourself. To strengthen my case, E&R publications credited the theology of Philip Schaff for this merger. That really ought to be enough to dismiss the Post Hoc fallacy charge.

Do the Federal Vision men exhibit the same signs as the Mercersburg men? Yes, I believe they do. Busy attacking me as foolish, no one bothered to deal with my example of the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches (Doug Wilson’s denomination). After allowing member churches to adhere to almost any Reformed Confession, including Baptist confessions, they state the following in their constitution:

G. Controversies within a local congregation regarding matters arising from differences between our various confessions will not be adjudicated beyond the local church level. All churches agree to work cheerfully and carefully in their study of doctrinal differences, and to strive for like-mindedness with one another

Thus differences in the Westminster and the London Baptist confessions over baptism are unimportant and should be left alone. Differences regarding the Sabbath between the Three Forms of Unity and the Westminster should also be ignored. You get the picture. This is similar thinking to the E&R in the early 1900’s. When Confessions differ, just decide for yourself. The denomination does not think it matters.

But there is more! Andrew Sandlin claims:

We CRs have a broadness of our own, but it is the broadness of the orthodox Christian tradition itself. We are committed to what Thomas Oden terms “classical Christianity,” the early ecumenical orthodoxy of the undivided church as set forth principally in the Apostles, Nicene, Chalcedonian, and Athanasian Creeds.

Here Sandlin argues that Christianity can differ on many points as long as it does not differ on the points covered in the early creeds. In this perspective, justification by faith alone is one of those doctrines that one does not have to believe. Works, faith, whatever, just as long as one understands Christ is one person in two natures. It should not be hard to see this progression toward theological relativism.

What about Nevin’s view of the creeds and confessions? Does anyone believe that the creeds are barriers to catholicity that need to be overcome? Why yes! One quote from Rev. Rich Lusk should be enough:

Nevertheless, the Catechism can serve as a barrier to Reformed catholicity. The Shorter Catechism essentially reduces the biblical story to a set of propositions. It treats theology in a highly analytic way, as a matter of defining terms (e.g., "What is justification?", "What is sanctification?”, etc.).

For Rev. Lusk, defining words like justification and sanctification gets in the way of ecumenism and catholicity. John Nevin would be proud.

Mercersburg adherents and Federal Vision supporters both find themselves on the same slippery slope. They view confessions as barriers to catholicity and Christian union, they believe creeds with differing theologies can be held equally, and they affirm that doctrine develops and changes. One hundred years ago, this led to relativism in Mercersburg defenders, and I believe the foundation has been laid for a repeat with the Federal Vision. Aside from the name-calling, no one has yet to step up and offer a counter argument.

So remember, the next time you hear someone defend their theological viewpoint by asserting that differing theologies of salvation (or the sacraments or whatever) are allowable because they come from different parts of the same Reformed tradition, be assured that that is a step towards relativism.

To Rome or Relativism?

Finally, the high regard for Mercersburg Theology is open and apparent. They wish to be High Church Calvinists like John Nevin and Philip Schaff. I am sorry that Rev. Meyers thinks that Nevin is not understood and that he is used as an albatross to tie around necks. Nevin and Schaff destroyed the German Reformed Church. They ran out members that disagreed, they forced Liturgy and new theology on the church. It lead to decades of strife, contentiousness, and hostility. In the end, Nevin won because they controlled the seminary. The RCUS merged with the Evangelical Lutheran church, and then they merged with a Congregational group to make the United Churches of Christ. Rev. Meyers is right about one thing. Being a Mercersburg High Church Calvinist is not being on the road to Rome and her doctrine. It is on the road to no doctrine at all.

If the Reformed tradition turning into the UCC is not proof enough, then examine the new denomination of the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC). This denomination is permeated with Federal Vision proponents such as Wilson, Sandlin, and I believe Leithart ministers in one of their churches. There constitution allows member churches to choose which Reformed confession to follow including the Westminster and the London Baptist confession. What about the differences over such things as sacraments? Those differences are not important. Doctrinal unity gives way to organic unity. The Federal Vision is not on the road to Rome for even Rome recognizes doctrine is important. The Federal Vision is on the road to relativism.

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?

The Danger of Weekly Communion and High Liturgy

I thought I would follow up on an earlier post. I mentioned that the Mercersburg men won their battle for a new version of reformed theology, not by direct confrontation, but by agitation for a high liturgy. The Federal Vision adherents appear to me to be trying a similar tact. I worry that they too will be successful if more attention is not paid to the theology of liturgy by old reformed churches.

Weekly communion is one example of that higher liturgy that is likely to gain inroads for the Federal Vision theology. Many pastors do not see a problem with weekly communion. In fact, they do not appreciate any suggestion that weekly communion is dangerous to the preaching of Christ crucified. With so many churches already moving towards a weekly communion, it is easy to see how the argument for a high liturgy will be an easier sell for the Federal Visionists than an outright change of orthodox dogma would be. Especially when you consider that other ministers advocating a high liturgy like Michael Horton and R.C. Sproul, who are not known to support Federal Vision adherents, may now be aligned with them in this fight to change the worship service. Some might say that one could promote a high liturgy without holding to a Federal Vision view of sacraments and justification. Let us hear John Nevin of Mercersburg on this issue.

In this way our liturgical controversy is, in reality, a great theological controversy; one that should be of interest to other Protestant Churches, no less than to our own. We see in it two general schemes of theology; two different versions, we may say, of the meaning of Christianity; two Gospels in fact, arrayed against one another, . . .(Catholic and Reformed, Vindication of the Liturgy, pg. 381).

One cannot take an altar-based liturgy, of which weekly communion is a part, and peacefully put it in the pulpit-centered churches of Geneva. One of the two must give way because they are of a different spirit. Henry Bullinger, in his Second Decade, wrote that that God is a spirit and must be worshipped in spirit and holiness. This type of worship commanded in the second commandment is contrary to any outward honors or displays (kneeling or prostrating or turning towards a cross) made to any thing, including the Eucharist. He goes on to decry the ministerial robe as a copy of the priests and a tradition of man, given only to create superstition (Fifth Decade). The Puritans, like Samuel Mather and John Cotton, rightly argued that a book of prayers sets itself against the Bible as the only sufficient book and that form prayers set themselves against the unction of the Holy Spirit and against praying in the Spirit.

The weekly communion service, with the rest of the elements of high liturgy, elevates the supper to a place where it does not belong. The weekly service harmonizes well with the teaching of Federal Vision adherents that the supper keeps us in union with Christ. Practicing Communion becomes essential for continued salvation. It naturally turns the focus of worship from the invisible proclamation of Christ in the gospel to the visible proclamation in the sacrament. Faith is replaced by sight. It will raise the call for more and more objective, visible elements appealing to all the senses, which in turn will lead to the introduction of unbiblical elements into worship. The argument that our worship is structured on the OT sacrifices of the temple will be employed to justify such things as incense, processionals, robes, and prayer book formulas. Slowly the table will again become the altar. This is how the medieval Roman Church built the mass: first an over-emphasis on sacraments, then the suggestion of the corporal presence of Christ, then the concept of transubstantiation, and finally the presentation of the mass as a real sacrifice central to salvation. The reformed understanding of the gospel has not existed peacefully with the practice of weekly communion in the history of the church. Not in Rome, nor in Constantinople, nor in Wittenburg, nor in Canterbury. Reformed theologians need to rally and to proclaim the Biblical understanding of worship and liturgy before it is too late.