I'm Catholic now, in case you haven't figured it out. So my usefulness as any sort of commentator on things Reformed is severely limited. However, there seems to be some debate has to what Reformed theology actually is. Some notable theologians and teachers, like Dr. Anthony Bradley of King's College, New York City, argue that a small band of tribalist Baptists have hijacked the meaning of "Reformed". Offering the pamphlet "What it Means to be Reformed" from Calvin Theological Seminary as an alternative to what he perceives as this tribalism, I read it with interest. I wanted to know if this pamphlet accurately represented what I understood to be Reformed theology. If it does, then it may be used to correct any errors of a more provincial or limited nature with respect to to the scope of Reformed theology. If it does not, then a more credible alternative must be found.
In my opinion, this pamphlet does represent Reformed theology accurately as it was taught to me. This judgment of mine is unaffected by the fact that it was offered by the seminary of another denomination than the one of which I was a part. The Kuyper-influenced Dutch Calvinism represented here was especially resonant in terms of cultural engagement. Moreover, I think it represents accurately other traditions besides its own within Reformed theology. It is not my purpose to critique those who may be responsible for the "hijacking" of Reformed theology. But I thought it might be useful to give my perspective on what I thought the theological problems were with this offering. Obviously, it comes from my current position as a Catholic, and having chosen that ecclesiology over the one I previously held, so it may not be compelling to those in that Reformed tradition. Still, I offer it in charity, and in the hope of eventual reunion.
I have three areas of disagreement with this pamphlet: 1) its ecclesiology; 2) its view of grace; and 3) its view of human freedom.
The ecclesiology of this pamphlet is a restatement of the "branch theory" of ecclesiology. The problem with this is that it must accept the contradictions inherent in affirming each set of de fide doctrines as a part of itself. This in fact weakens each set with respect to the certainty of the dogmas proposed by each, because a person cannot know whether this set of particular dogmas is is in fact true, because the body proposing that set for belief has no more authority than any other body proposing a different set of non-negotiable articles of faith. There is an irreconcilable dilemma in the practice of this ecclesiology, in that the contrary to any dogma currently held can be considered as a valid expression of the faith of the entire "Church" when no one is charged with the task of arbitrating exactly what must be held by the faithful. In other words, as long as a dogma can be found to have been proposed by another body considered to be within the "family" of the church, that dogma cannot be ruled false. In this way, almost anything can be considered a valid expression of the faith of the "Church," while none is definitive.
Also, if there is an arbiter, it is the individual. Because the ecclesial bodies have been rendered inert by the wider concept of the church that includes all their mutually exclusive opinions, the individual is free to arbitrate precisely what he considers to be the most important and less important aspects of the data proposed for belief. He does not submit as a matter of course, but provisionally, as the arbiter of the scope and nature of any one body's authority over him. In fact, he is the arbiter of the overall concept to which he allegedly "submits," and in this way, doctrinal variations and their meaning become expressions of the preference of the individual, not disputes to be solved, or outright unacceptable deviations from the faith of the Church of Jesus Christ. All this is the inevitable fruit of Sola Scriptura, and as long as the CRC adheres to it is a principle, then the true nature of the gospel of Jesus Christ cannot be known. The reason for this is that the links between the CRC and all other Christians cannot be established with any degree of certainty, nor the faith held in common by all articulated, much less defended. To even attempt this, the CRC would claim an authority that it does not have. By the nature of the case, it has an authority that is derivative and contingent upon the consent of individuals. There is no power for this body to bind anyone to anything it proposes, nor remove from the individual the absolute right to deny what is proposed, and pursuant to that denial, to essentially redefine the "Church," that body's place in it, and the relative value of what it proposes.
Secondly, the pamphlet offers us the Reformed vision of grace. It is the unmerited favor of God, from beginning to end. But what of those who will not accept the gospel, who will not be restored in Christ? Are they not the image of God? They must be. But it cannot be earned, and it is always effectual in bringing about the salvation of the elect. It cannot be refused, because it cannot be accepted. So what is it that demonstrates the dignity of the person and shows the justice of God in judgment of the sinner? Common grace. What's odd about common grace is that it is wholly unrelated to the special grace that saves the elect. It does not potentially issue forth in other graces that lead to salvation; it is not a light or mercy to the damned. It is simply a restraint upon that person who in no way pleases God, in order that God's beloved ones may know that they both were created by God. Among the mysteries here is why this would be called "grace" at all. Of course, because there is no natural goodness in a man, one is constrained within the system to call it "grace." The problem is the conflation of grace and nature in the system, and the third problem, to which we now turn: its view of human freedom.
Frankly, it's appropriate to ask, "What freedom?" Man cannot choose God in this system, and he cannot make himself worthy of help leading to justification. Saving grace, in fact, is not given to everyone. Presumably, the non-elect are damned by their participation in the original sin (and personal sins, which men cannot avoid). We are told that God has mercy on whom he wills, and he hardens whom he wills. But did Christ die for all men? It's pointless to give man back his freedom in sanctification (and not justification) because there is no cost for failing to pursue holiness, if indeed the process of sanctification follows on a true justification, of which man has no part and is rooted in divine election. God cannot threaten terrors on the elect, for he has already pardoned their sins, and cannot undo it. Nor can he punish the same sins twice. Ultimately, they cannot avoid the charge that these views of grace and freedom make God the author of sin.
Other than that, it's a good pamphlet; I wish them luck.
In my opinion, this pamphlet does represent Reformed theology accurately as it was taught to me. This judgment of mine is unaffected by the fact that it was offered by the seminary of another denomination than the one of which I was a part. The Kuyper-influenced Dutch Calvinism represented here was especially resonant in terms of cultural engagement. Moreover, I think it represents accurately other traditions besides its own within Reformed theology. It is not my purpose to critique those who may be responsible for the "hijacking" of Reformed theology. But I thought it might be useful to give my perspective on what I thought the theological problems were with this offering. Obviously, it comes from my current position as a Catholic, and having chosen that ecclesiology over the one I previously held, so it may not be compelling to those in that Reformed tradition. Still, I offer it in charity, and in the hope of eventual reunion.
I have three areas of disagreement with this pamphlet: 1) its ecclesiology; 2) its view of grace; and 3) its view of human freedom.
The ecclesiology of this pamphlet is a restatement of the "branch theory" of ecclesiology. The problem with this is that it must accept the contradictions inherent in affirming each set of de fide doctrines as a part of itself. This in fact weakens each set with respect to the certainty of the dogmas proposed by each, because a person cannot know whether this set of particular dogmas is is in fact true, because the body proposing that set for belief has no more authority than any other body proposing a different set of non-negotiable articles of faith. There is an irreconcilable dilemma in the practice of this ecclesiology, in that the contrary to any dogma currently held can be considered as a valid expression of the faith of the entire "Church" when no one is charged with the task of arbitrating exactly what must be held by the faithful. In other words, as long as a dogma can be found to have been proposed by another body considered to be within the "family" of the church, that dogma cannot be ruled false. In this way, almost anything can be considered a valid expression of the faith of the "Church," while none is definitive.
Also, if there is an arbiter, it is the individual. Because the ecclesial bodies have been rendered inert by the wider concept of the church that includes all their mutually exclusive opinions, the individual is free to arbitrate precisely what he considers to be the most important and less important aspects of the data proposed for belief. He does not submit as a matter of course, but provisionally, as the arbiter of the scope and nature of any one body's authority over him. In fact, he is the arbiter of the overall concept to which he allegedly "submits," and in this way, doctrinal variations and their meaning become expressions of the preference of the individual, not disputes to be solved, or outright unacceptable deviations from the faith of the Church of Jesus Christ. All this is the inevitable fruit of Sola Scriptura, and as long as the CRC adheres to it is a principle, then the true nature of the gospel of Jesus Christ cannot be known. The reason for this is that the links between the CRC and all other Christians cannot be established with any degree of certainty, nor the faith held in common by all articulated, much less defended. To even attempt this, the CRC would claim an authority that it does not have. By the nature of the case, it has an authority that is derivative and contingent upon the consent of individuals. There is no power for this body to bind anyone to anything it proposes, nor remove from the individual the absolute right to deny what is proposed, and pursuant to that denial, to essentially redefine the "Church," that body's place in it, and the relative value of what it proposes.
Secondly, the pamphlet offers us the Reformed vision of grace. It is the unmerited favor of God, from beginning to end. But what of those who will not accept the gospel, who will not be restored in Christ? Are they not the image of God? They must be. But it cannot be earned, and it is always effectual in bringing about the salvation of the elect. It cannot be refused, because it cannot be accepted. So what is it that demonstrates the dignity of the person and shows the justice of God in judgment of the sinner? Common grace. What's odd about common grace is that it is wholly unrelated to the special grace that saves the elect. It does not potentially issue forth in other graces that lead to salvation; it is not a light or mercy to the damned. It is simply a restraint upon that person who in no way pleases God, in order that God's beloved ones may know that they both were created by God. Among the mysteries here is why this would be called "grace" at all. Of course, because there is no natural goodness in a man, one is constrained within the system to call it "grace." The problem is the conflation of grace and nature in the system, and the third problem, to which we now turn: its view of human freedom.
Frankly, it's appropriate to ask, "What freedom?" Man cannot choose God in this system, and he cannot make himself worthy of help leading to justification. Saving grace, in fact, is not given to everyone. Presumably, the non-elect are damned by their participation in the original sin (and personal sins, which men cannot avoid). We are told that God has mercy on whom he wills, and he hardens whom he wills. But did Christ die for all men? It's pointless to give man back his freedom in sanctification (and not justification) because there is no cost for failing to pursue holiness, if indeed the process of sanctification follows on a true justification, of which man has no part and is rooted in divine election. God cannot threaten terrors on the elect, for he has already pardoned their sins, and cannot undo it. Nor can he punish the same sins twice. Ultimately, they cannot avoid the charge that these views of grace and freedom make God the author of sin.
Other than that, it's a good pamphlet; I wish them luck.
Comments