The Danger of Reformed Traditionalism, Part I
Posted by deangonzales on September 4, 2008
The NT employs the Greek paradosis to refer to religious teaching that has been handed down orally or in writing, commonly known as “tradition.” One finds examples of both good and bad tradition. Inspired apostolic tradition is viewed in a positive light (1 Cor. 11:2; 2 Thess. 2:13). Non-inspired ecclesiastical tradition is usually viewed in a negative light (Matt. 15:1-9; Gal. 1:13-14; Col. 2:8). The danger of non-inspired tradition is its potential for distorting, invalidating, and even supplanting biblical truth. This would hold true not only of non-inspired Jewish tradition but also of non-inspired Christian tradition. The framers of the Westminster Confession of Faith were well aware of this danger and addressed it unambiguously in I, 6 and XXXI, 3:
The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.
All synods or councils, since the apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore, they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice; but to be used as a help in both.
A concern about Reformed traditionalism today
Throughout the last several decades many evangelical churches in America have been engaged in a process of reformation analogous to the great Protestant Reformation of the 16th century. Like the early Protestant churches, a number of churches today are reforming in doctrine, in worship, and in church government. In these and other respects, today’s reformation is analogous to the Reformation of Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin, except on a smaller scale.
In other respects, however, these two reformations differ. For example, the Reformers lived in a context in which there was an overemphasis on the authority of the church and an under-emphasis on the priesthood of the believer (which is related to liberty of conscience). In our day it seems to be the reverse. Today there appears to be an overemphasis on the priesthood of the believer (i.e., individualism) and an under-emphasis on the importance and authority of the church. In the 16th century, the Reformers had to correct a distorted gospel, which attempted to make good works the instrument of justification, by restoring simple faith to its proper place. Today, we have to correct the perversion of grace and faith (i.e., Easy-believism) by an emphasis upon the necessity of good works as the fruit of saving faith. There are other differences we could highlight. But there is one in particular upon which I’d like to focus our attention. This distinction between the Protestant Reformation and our modern reformation is subtle. But I believe it is an important distinction and worthy of our consideration.
One of the hallmarks of the Protestant Reformation was a movement away from traditionalism and a return to the Scriptures as the ultimate authority of the Christian church. This was not a complete rejection of church tradition or legitimate human authority. Rather, it was a conscious effort to reestablish the primacy of Scripture in matters of faith and practice and to subordinate all church tradition to the teaching of Scripture. It was this restored focus upon Bible’s authority and teaching that gave birth to the Latin phrase, sola Scriptura (the Bible alone).
How does this differ from our modern reformation? Most Reformed churches today continue to affirm the principle of sola Scriptura. However, alongside that affirmation, there is, I believe, a renewed emphasis upon historical tradition, particularly the Protestant Reformed and Puritan traditions. This renewed interest in the Reformed tradition is seen in the resurgence and republication of Reformed literature. Think, for example, of all the good Reformed and Puritan books that have been reprinted and republished by Banner of Truth Trust. And many theologians today are publishing articles and books that analyze and expound this Reformed tradition—Luther’s doctrine of justification; Calvin’s doctrine of sacraments; the Puritan regulative principle of worship, etc.
Furthermore, there has been the republication of the great Reformed confessions and catechisms. This renewed interest in the Reformed creeds has coincided with the emergence of evangelical churches like ours that are studying and adopting these old creeds as doctrinal standards. In fact, many of these churches have chosen to express their commitment to and identification with this Reformed tradition by inserting the term “Reformed” in the name of the church. Thus, one can find a “Reformed Baptist Church Directory” on the Internet in which appear such names as, “Grace Reformed Baptist Church,” “Covenant Reformed Baptist Church,” or the “Reformed Baptist Church of Holland.” So, alongside an affirmation of sola Scriptura there is also this growing interest in and identification with the Reformed and Puritan tradition.
As I said earlier, the Protestant Reformers were not opposed to all tradition. If you read their writings, you’ll find that they often cite the church fathers and earlier church tradition, sometimes in a positive light. For instance, both Luther and Calvin had a deep appreciation for the writings of Augustine. They quoted Augustine to demonstrate that what they were teaching was not entirely novel. But we do not seem to find among the Reformers a pronounced concern or preoccupation to be identified with the Augustinian tradition. We do not find Protestant churches springing up with the name, “The Augustinian Church of Wittenburg,” or “Grace Augustinian Church.” We do not find Luther and Calvin calling the church to return to the writings of Augustine. Rather, the Reformers were primarily concerned to take the church back not to Augustine, not to Athanasius, not to Irenaeus, but all the way back to Jesus, and to Paul, and to John, and to the other biblical writers.
By noting this contrast, I’m not implying that Reformed churches today are unconcerned with the Bible. On the contrary, one of the reasons churches like ours appreciate the Reformed tradition is because of its emphasis upon the Scripture. Along with the Reformers, we continue to affirm the principle of sola Scriptura. But here is where the danger lies: whereas the Reformers evaluated the faith and practice of the church in the light of Scripture; some Reformed leaders today seem to evaluate the faith and practice of the church in the light of the Reformed tradition, especially in light of their Reformed Confession of Faith.
Actually, the danger is really more subtle. Few Reformed pastors today would begin their sermon by asking the congregation to turn to page 250 of Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion or to chapter 14 of the Westminster Confession of Faith. Like the 16th century Reformers, modern Reformed pastors endeavor to take God’s people back to the Scripture. With a growing interest in and appreciation for the Reformed tradition, however, there can be a tendency to look at the Bible only through the lens of Reformed tradition. In other words, there is a real danger of imposing the Reformed tradition as a grid over the Bible and then insisting that every interpretation and application must agree with that tradition.
In principle no Reformed pastor or theologian would elevate his tradition to the same level as Scripture. But in practice I believe there can be a very subtle tendency in that direction. Let me give you two examples: first, consider Herman Hoeksema’s Reformed Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 1966). This is a systematic theology written by a professor of the Protestant Reformed church. Let me quote the volume’s description from the dust jacket:
Here is a thoroughly Scriptural and Reformed exposition of the faith once delivered to the saints…. In the view of the author, there are three factors essential to a sound dogmatics. The first is that dogmatics must be faithful to the Scriptures, and therefore thoroughly exegetical. The second is that fundamentally all of dogmatics must be theologically construed, and must therefore be theocentric. The third is that a sound dogmatics must be faithful to the Reformed creeds and to the dogma of the church [emphasis added].
A perusal through the book demonstrates the author’s coordinate concern to base his doctrinal formulations both in the teaching of Scripture and also in the Reformed continental symbols. A second example of this determination to remain within the confines of Reformed tradition can be found in D. G. Hart and John R. Muether, With Reverence and Awe: Returning to the Basics of Reformed Worship (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2003). In the introductory chapter, the authors identify the purpose and method of their book. In light of what they see as wrong assumptions and practices in modern worship, they write,
We need to return to basics on worship. That is the purpose of this little book. On the basis of Scripture and Reformed confessions, we have designed a primer on what is arguably the Christian’s most important calling. A primer is defined as a short, introductory book on a single subject. This is exactly what follows—a brief overview of how Reformed theology informs the way we think about, put together, and participate in a worship service [emphasis added] (p. 13).
Can you see how in both of these examples the authors want us to look at the Scriptures through the lens of Reformed tradition? Of course, they affirm the authority of Scripture. But there seems to be an underlying assumption that the only right way to interpret and apply the Bible is through the medium of Reformed creeds. I fear that this underlying assumption can slowly erode our commitment to the principle and practice of sola Scriptura, and it can dangerously elevate the authority of our Reformed tradition.
Please don’t misunderstand me. I am not opposed to creeds or confessions. On the contrary, I’ve recently written a series of posts defending the use of creeds and underscoring their value to the church (see “On the Validity & Value of Confessions of Faith,” Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV). Of all the historical creeds, I believe those of the Reformed tradition most accurately represent the teaching of Scripture. Of all the Reformed creeds, I believe the 1689 is, overall, the best! To use the language of my local church constitution, I regard “the London Baptist Confession of Faith … as an excellent, though not inspired, expression of the teaching of the Word of God” (Art. IV). Moreover, I not only believe in the validity and value of our confession, but I also believe we should know and acquaint our congregation with the teaching of its doctrinal symbols.
I am, nevertheless, sensitive to the danger of creating the impression that our Baptist Confession is incapable of improvement or that the Confession has said everything that needs to be said or that teachings of the Bible must conform in proportion and emphasis to the teaching of our Confession. In order to prevent our esteem for the London Baptist Confession in particular or our Reformed heritage in general from subtly weakening our commitment to sola Scriptura, I suggest that (1) we beware of the danger of traditionalism and (2) we be aware of the limitations of our own Baptist Confession. In this post, I’ve tried to alert us to the danger of Reformed traditionalism. In the next post, I hope to provide an example of a limitation (or weakness) in our own 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith.
Bob Gonzales, Dean
Reformed Baptist Seminary
September 4th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
I agree with your comments on the strange phenomenon that has taken place among many of those who hold tenaciously to Sola Scriptura; namely that somehow, in through the back door, there has sneaked a commitment and adherence to ‘tradition.’
However since it is often (in Reformed circles) not a written form of tradition (such as in Papal Bulls in the RC church) but merely a tradition passed on orally, by practice or by insinuation the Elephant can be in the room and few want to admit it is even there let alone reasonably discuss it.
One only discovers how deeply some brethren are devoted to this tradition when their is a divergence made from it. It is then questions are seriously asked regarding one’s commitment to the Reformed Faith, as if Sola Scriptura is not a good enough foundation.
I wait with baited breath to see what the Dean will say about the limitation of the 1689.
September 5th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
If the Reformed confession is the constitution of the church, which it is for Presbyterians, what is the scandal in suggesting that Reformed confessions guide the church’s interpretation of the Bible’s teaching on worship? Isn’t that what a confession is supposed to do? Or do you believe that a confession consists of ideas without consequences?
September 5th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Dear Professor Muether,
Thank you for the questions. I’ll try to address them the best I can. First, the Baptist Confession of Faith (which is the granddaughter of the WCF) forms a major part of the constitution of our church but not its entirety. We view both our confession and our constitution as extensions of human ecclesiastical authority. Second, I do believe that our confession should serve as a guide for the church’s faith and practice, including worship. I defend this thesis in Part IV of my series, “On the Validity and Value of Confessions of Faith.” Third, I affirm that a confession consists of ideas with consequences. It is for that reason we need to beware of allowing the consequences of our confession to ever stifle or silence the consequences of Scripture itself. Of course, in principle we’ve adopted a confession that we believe to be “an excellent, though not inspired, expression of the teaching of the Word of God.” The point I’m trying to highlight in my post is that “excellent, though not inspired” constrains us to maintain a Berean spirit that is always willing to augment or revise our confession should the light of Scripture reveal certain deficiencies. With all due respect, it was this Berean disposition that prompted the Puritan Baptists to revise the otherwise excellent WCF and Savoy symbols. Moreover, since I don’t believe the Holy Spirit has ceased teaching the church, I believe we must remain open to the possibility that there may be a place for further additions and revisions to the 17th century symbols–including my own Baptist Confession. I hope to address some of those areas in my next post.
Before I close this response, allow me to make a few clarifying remarks. First, I’m aware that some within confessional circles today are using arguments similar to mine in order to suggest that Reformed churches (and seminaries) significantly revise what I would consider to be fundamental doctrines of the faith, like, for example, the doctrine of inerrancy (e.g., Peter Enns’s I&I). Some from this group accuse those who stand in their way of being “traditionalists.” I don’t think their name-calling is fair since many scholars who presently object to the suggested reformulation of the doctrine of Scripture are outside the Reformed tradition. Moreover, there are some doctrines in our confessions that are so fundamental to the Christian faith so as to require a great deal of irrefutable exegetical and theological evidence before we consider any kind of revision. This would also include doctrines such as the Trinity, deity of Christ, justification by faith alone in Christ alone, etc. Second, I don’t believe it is unethical for a church or seminary to dismiss a pastor or teacher if he can no longer affirm the confession he promised ex animo to uphold and defend. Ideally, of course, there should be a mechanism whereby a pastor or teacher can appeal to the church(es) to amend certain doctrines and practices contained in the confession or constitution should they in any way be contrary to Scripture. But if after careful study and prayer the church determines that the confession’s teaching is accurate and that the suggested revision is unnecessary or even erroneous, the said pastor or professor should be willing to retract his proposed amendment or step down from his pastoral or teaching position peacefully. Finally, I want to affirm that my citation of the book you co-authored with Dr. Hart is not intended to impugn your motives, insinuate that you and Dr. Hart treat the seventeenth century Reformed tradition as inerrant, or convey a lack of appreciation for the contribution you’ve made. I do believe in the importance of historical theology (though my training is primarily in exegetical and biblical theology) and I truly appreciate books produced by able church historians. Indeed, I recently finished your biography on Cornelius Van Til (one of my heroes) and am thankful for your contribution to preserving his legacy for future generations. It is my humble opinion, nonetheless, that the worship wars now occurring within and among Reformed churches will probably be won or resolved not by appealing to tradition primarily but to Scripture. Although I question some of the applications John Frame’s book on worship seems to legitimize, I prefer his approach to the question of worship because he appears to give a greater emphasis to Scripture than to the Reformed tradition (compare the Scripture indices of both books). Having said that, I still appreciate much of what you and Dr. Hart wrote. Once again, thank you for your helpful questions that have called me to clarify my position.
Respectfully yours,
Bob Gonzales, Dean
Reformed Baptist Seminary
September 5th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Thank you for your thoughtful and courteous reply. I don’t want to burden you with an extended dialogue here, but permit me to make one more observation. I would invite you to consider whether it is really possible to approach the Bible in the “tradition-less” way that you describe. All of us bring our presuppositions to Scripture, including our ecclesial situatedness, so it seems epistemologically naive to say: “let’s lay the confession aside and approach the Bible neutrally.” Van Til, for example, would have argued that it is only through the corporate hermeneutic of the Reformed confessions that Reformed Christians can take sola scriptura seriously. The same holds true, mutatis mutandis, for other Protestant traditions. Imagining otherwise is simply to jettison the Reformed tradition for another tradition. That one is commonly known as the Enlightenment.
September 5th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Professor Muether,
Your questions and challenges are not a burden. I really appreciate the dialogue. I also agree with much of what you say. First, I agree that our approach to interpreting the Bible should take ecclesiastical tradition into account. I am sorry if my post gives the impression of advocating a “tradition-less” hermeneutic. If you have the time to read my series “On the Validity & Value of Confessions of Faith,” you’ll see that I oppose the “Bible (or NT) alone is my creed” mentality. My only concern is that we not adopt a view of tradition that limits any valid theological insights to those made in the 17th century thereby precluding any Spirit-wrought new insights. In other words, I want to be confessional, but I also want to allow for the principle of semper reformanda. Again, I recognize that that phrase can be and is used to promote such major revisions to the Reformed tradition that would virtually destroy any real continuity. But I do think there’s room for modest revision and augmentation.
Second (and related to the comments above) I agree that a tabula rasa approach to interpreting Scripture is epistemologically naive and unsound. I believe that we all approach Scripture with certain presuppositions. Some of these presuppositions are so fundamental to the Christian religion that we cannot subject them to revision without destroying the very edifice upon which they rest. Less foundational presuppositions may, on the other hand, be open to some degree of revision or augmentation. So I’m not advocating that we approach the Bible neutrally or that we need a major overall of the Reformed faith. Actually, I think my proposed changes to our 17th century confessions would be generally modest. I don’t believe such changes would result in the loss of our Reformed identity but its enhancement. Hopefully, I’ll try to offer some concrete suggestions in my next post.
Thanks again for taking the time to interact. May the Lord bless your ministry at RTS!
Sincerely,
Bob Gonzales
September 5th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Well said, my brother. You nailed it. I expect you’ll get some flack for this post in certain circles, or perhaps ignored…
All the same, well said.
September 5th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
Dr. Gonzalez, I greatly appreciate what you have written, and I hope that what you say will continue to find an audience among Reformed churches.
It seems very strange to me that the “Reformed confessions guide the church’s interpretation of the Bible’s teaching,” when Scripture is supposed to be the source of the Reformed confessions. There’s a chicken-and-the-egg problem: what takes the precedence, Scripture or the Reformed Confessions? Why would we derive something from Scripture, and then reimpose it back on Scripture?
It is true that we cannot approach Scripture in a “tradition-less” way, but surely we ought to approach Scripture in a way that minimizes are presuppositions as much as possible.
If the lens of the Reformed Confessions are necessary for interpretation, what does that mean for the doctrine of perspicuity? What answer do we give to the Catholics, who insist that the Catholic Church needs to interpret Scripture? That the Reformed Confessions serve the same purpose?
Why is it acceptable to use uninspired Reformed Confessions as a lens to interpret Scripture, and yet when Peter Enns uses Ancient Near Eastern sources as a lens for the Old Testament, he is accused of ANE sources as an extra-biblical authority?
Once we elevate anything outside the Bible as an authority, whether it be church councils, synods, ANE sources or human reason, we are in dangerous territory. When we then use that secondary authority as an interpreter, we must be doubly careful.
September 6th, 2008 at 2:02 am
Another issue is that confessions are usually produced in an atmosphere of theological controversy. This commonly leads to an overreaction in the opposite direction which can leave us imbalanced. Should we primarily interpret Scripture through such a lens, we shall be stuck with the imbalance when it gets ingrained as a tradition. The next thing you know, to question such and such a position will cause some to look at you as though you had 2 heads. Take the common Reformed Baptist practice of having prayer meeting on Wednesday, or of requiring attendance at all stated meetings of the church. There are no such requirements in Scripture, Sunday School and Wednesday prayer meeting are traditions. They are good and helpful, but not required by God. Therefore they should be voluntary. However, disagree on this (even though Scripture will have to be stretched and bent to defend the practice) and you’re membership in good standing is in jeopardy, not to mention your devotion to Christ and your spiritual health brought into question…
September 6th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Elnwood,
Confessional integrity does not involve us in a chicken-and-an-egg dilemma, but rather it rightly engages us in a hermeneutical circle between a confessing church and the Word of God. Your failure to acknowledge this leads you to an astonishing conclusion: you reduce the church’s time-tested and corporate confession to the level of the idiosyncratic views of an individual biblical scholar (Enns). Do you really want to go there? This leaves you with no confession at all, but merely human opinion. Remember that confessions are churchly statements about the meaning of Scripture. As such they are ordinances of God to which we must submit, as genuine, though secondary authorities.
CGB: Your example about prayer meetings only demonstrates the vital importance about confessions. Because these matters are non-confessional, absence at a prayer meeting is not a chargable offense. Isn’t confessionalism liberating?
September 6th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
FWIW I am a Reformed Baptist pastor and have read Professor Muether’s fine book (and his book on Van Til) and found it to be a real delight! I plan to purchase many copies to have available at church.
I also think it is time for a new front on the “worship wars.” As it stands now, the
Arminian-charismatic movement has for the most part won. Here in Toledo, to my knowledge, there are but a few churches that have not caved to the man-centered, Elvis loving, hand waving drama worship falsely called.
I too look forward to see what Dr. Bob considers as a weakness in our confession in this matter!
dc
September 6th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
One other thing, we have our prayer meeting on Thursday and have yet to discipline anyone for not being in attendance.
Why is it our churches are always so mischaracterized?
I sure hope that Dr. Bob’s work on this topic is not reduced to being used to denounce attendance at prayer meetings and other gatherings of the local church!
dc
September 6th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Excellent post, Dr. Gonzalez. I agree that no one can come to the text neutrally, but I have also thought for some time that some in Reformed circles have what amounts to a Protestant Magisterium i.e. if Calvin, Knox, Turretin etc. believed something it must be right. This problem seems to be particularly acute among internet armchair Reformed theologians, who in some cases seem to think the WCF was inspired in much the same way as some KJV onlyists think the KJV is inspired.
As for the Enlightenment, that cuts both ways. Those who subscribe to the original WCF would charge that Mr. Muether and those in the continuing Presbyterian churches descended from the mainline (e.g. PCA, OPC) who subscribe to the American revisions to the WCF have jettisoned the theocratic elements of the Reformed tradition in favor of another tradition, commonly known as the enlightenment.
(Personally, I happen to prefer the American revisions, but as I am now a Baptist, that shouldn’t be surprising.)
I too appreciate John Muether and understand his concerns. I enjoyed sitting under his teaching at the Pineville, LA OPC a couple of years ago and learning how the liberals gained control of Old Princeton and the PCUSA and about the formation and history of the OPC. Too often the cry of semper reformanda is followed by some unorthodox proposal. I am by no means opposed to confessionalism, so long as the confession is properly recognized as a secondary standard (i.e. amendable if found to be lacking in some area, as opposed to those described in my first paragraph, who make the confession practically unamendable.) In fact, I would have a very hard time joining a church that didn’t have a confession or detailed statement of faith, having in the past experienced the pitfalls of the “no creed but Christ approach.”
September 6th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
Hi Chris, good to hear from you. I hope you are well.
I would vigorously disagree with your suggestion about the enlightenment influence on the American revisions to the WCF. To be sure, there were political realities that shaped those revisions, but the effect of those non-theocratic revisions, it seems to me, was a recovery of a deeper Augustinian principle of the two cities, and the Reformation principle of two kingdoms.
Still, I am glad you brought up the 1789 revisions, because they demonstrate that Reformed confessionalists can and have revised their fallible secondary standards when necessary. These confessions are not set in stone, contrary to popular caricature.
September 7th, 2008 at 1:00 am
DC,
I’ve been a member of a Reformed Baptist Church for 15 years. Absence from prayer meetings is frowned upon, as it is a stated meeting of the church. This is no mischaracterization, whether prayer meeting is on Wednesday or Thursday. It may not be the case in Toledo, but it is here.
September 7th, 2008 at 1:06 am
Professor Muether,
I’m not against confessionalism, I think confessions are important. The danger is that practically speaking they many times get elevated to the level of Scripture (of course, no one would ever say that they are). I know some folks who ridicule any position that doesn’t fit into their confessional grid.
I’m glad to see there were some revisions made in 1789. Guess I won’t hold my breath waiting for the next time it’s revisited
September 7th, 2008 at 1:34 am
CGB do you think the leaders at your church should smile when someone blows off a prayer meeting?
Still, I am willing to bet that with all the frowns at your church, no one has been excommunicated for not attending. Thanks for your thoughts.
dc
September 7th, 2008 at 1:46 am
DC,
I think the leaders of my church should be concerned about praying, since that is what they have gathered to do. They admit absence from prayer meeting is not an excommunicating offense. Since that is so, why require attendance when you have no authority to do so? God has not required it. I don’t blow off prayer meetings, by the way. I frequently attend, but I have a clear conscience when I don’t also. That is not the case with other brethren here, who have this issue pounded into them.
I’m glad that’s not the case in your church…
September 7th, 2008 at 2:43 am
I appreciate all the comments, including those that express concern with some elements of my post. I intend to give these concerns careful reflection and offer further clarifying remarks either below or in the second half of this series. For now, however, I must retire and rest my weary body and mind for the Lord’s Day tomorrow. May the Lord grant you all a day of spiritual feasting!
September 9th, 2008 at 12:33 am
Dr. Muether,
You wrote:
[QUOTE]Confessional integrity does not involve us in a chicken-and-an-egg dilemma, but rather it rightly engages us in a hermeneutical circle between a confessing church and the Word of God. Your failure to acknowledge this leads you to an astonishing conclusion: you reduce the church’s time-tested and corporate confession to the level of the idiosyncratic views of an individual biblical scholar (Enns). Do you really want to go there? This leaves you with no confession at all, but merely human opinion. Remember that confessions are churchly statements about the meaning of Scripture. As such they are ordinances of God to which we must submit, as genuine, though secondary authorities.[/QUOTE]
Could you explain how you distinguish between a chicken-and-the-egg problem and a “hermeneutical circle”? Why is the latter non-problematic? If the Confessions are derived from Scripture, and imperfectly, how is it not problematic to then impose the Confessions back onto Scripture?
You misinterpreted my original post. I was not comparing Enns’ views (which, contrary to what you implied, are not the idiosyncratic views of only one person) to the Confessions, but I was comparing Enns’ use of ANE sources as a non-inspired authority to interpret Scripture versus someone who uses the Confessions to interpret Scripture. I was comparing ANE sources as lenses versus the Confessions as lenses.
September 9th, 2008 at 4:03 am
Elnwood: What you overlook is the constitutional character of the confessions of faith. They are authoritative and powerful “as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in his Word” (WCF 31:2). Do you want to make such ecclesiastical claims for Enns’ ANE sources?
I am not arguing that we “impose” anything on Scripture. In acknowledging the interpretive function of Confessions, I am in agreement with Dr. Gonzalez’s point that “a tabula rasa approach to interpreting Scripture is epistemologically naive and unsound.” We necessarily bring our presuppositions or interpretive grid to Scripture. A confessionalist is open and above board about that: his grid is the confession of the church. Your quest to “minimize those presuppositions” is a hermeneutically impossible task that renders one captive to tacit assumptions that are often idiosyncratic and may run the risk of exceeding the bounds of confessional orthodoxy. Consider that heresy in the church almost always begins with a strict biblicism that seeks to liberate the Bible from the constraints of the dogma of the church’s interpretative past.
September 9th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Dr. Muether, we may have to just agree to disagree. The chapter you cited from the WCF was found wanting by John Owen and the drafters of the Savoy declaration, and also the drafters of the 1689 London Baptist Confession, and I am in agreement with them. As such, I make no ecclesiastical claims for either the Confessions or ANE sources, but that both can be useful as helps for interpretation.
You speak of the WCF as authoritative for the Church, but when you mean “Church,” you do not mean the local church or the universal church, but you mean the Presbyterian Church, excluding the Reformed Christians in the Savoy and London assemblies that, in that same generation, recognized that the WCF could not be their corporate Confession while recognizing enough doctrinal similarities that they borrowed large portions of it to show their unity in essentials.
I agree too that “a tabula rasa approach to interpreting Scripture is epistemologically naive and unsound.” But the Confessions are not presuppositions to reading the Scripture. They are conclusions based on reading Scripture.
Here’s how I see the difference. A presupposition for interpretation is, “I believe the Bible is the Word of God, authoritative, and inerrant.” But a presupposition is not “The Bible teaches credobaptism,” or “The Bible teaches paedobaptism.” That’s not a presupposition for interpretation. That is a conclusive interpretation, and one that is highly disputed.
Consider that heresy in the church will only be confronted with a biblicism that seeks to liberate the Bible from the constraints of the dogma of the church’s interpretative past. Thank God for men like Martin Luther who stood up for the Bible over against the dogma of the Church!
September 9th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Elnwood:
You write, “we may have to just agree to disagree.” Fair enough, and thanks to all for cordially welcoming this Presbyterian party-crasher to your discussion. I wish you well in your ongoing discussions on the role of Reformed confessions, though I should warn you that greater reflection may make Presbyterians out of some of you! (Note to Chris Poe: come back!!!)
Cordially,
John Muether
September 11th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
[...] Danger of Reformed Traditionalism, Part II In our previous post, I sought to caution against an unbridled enthusiasm for and unquestioning commitment to our [...]
September 11th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
[...] Baptist Seminary in Greenville, SC has been posting on the dangers of Reformed traditionalism: The Danger of Reformed Traditionalism, Part I « RBS Tabletalk The Danger of Reformed Traditionalism, Part II « RBS Tabletalk __________________ Chris Poe [...]
September 11th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
Prof. Muether,
Thanks for the interaction. I prefer to think that greater reflection led me to revert back to my previously held baptistic beliefs, but of course my Presby friends prefer to think I’m just confused or never understood the covenant paedobaptist view in the first place.
September 12th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Thank you for this thought provoking article; I notice on the Puritan Board you are being misrepresented as saying the Reformers were against Church tradition, but what you are actually saying is that they were against a traditionalism which elevated the inventions of men above the Bible.
Although I agree with nearly everything in the original Westminster Confession, I get frustrated when I hear about theological controversies being decided upon the basis of an appeal to the Westminster Confession.
September 12th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Prof. Gonzales,
I applaud your post. The Reformed Confessions are great, but they were written in the 1500s, 1600s and 1700s. They are therefore historical; that is, products of historical circumstances with the data available. Were the Puritans aware that the creation account resembled ANE accounts? No, this was discovered in the 1800s. Had the Westminster divines known this would the WCF have stated what it did regarding creation in six days? Of course we cannot say. The answers to the questions about creation then, cannot be settled by appealing to the WCF because it was written at a time ignorant of where we are at now.The question can only be settled on the basis of solid exegesis.
Similarly, the NPP; if the Westminster divines misunderstood Second Temple Judaism then we can’t simply appeal to the WCF on justification to win the argument. We need to go back to the text of Scripture, assess the ‘new’ discoveries and settle the question on the basis of solid exegesis.
I know of Presbyterians (both here and Stateside) who attack those who disagree with the WCF on ‘days of creation’ and yet they don’t agree with the statements regarding the pope being the antichrist!
To what degree does one need to subscribe to the Reformed confessions in order to be Reformed? Is it “all or nothing”? Are there legitimate expressions of difference within the Reformed community? If so who decides what is legitimate or and what is not?
Who gets to define what being Reformed is? Are we to take a snapshot of the Reformed in the 17th century and say that these men are Reformed and unless you agree with them you are not Reformed? Or are we to allow for doctrinal developments within the Reformed community building upon what our forefathers said and taught?
If we are to allow for doctrinal developments within the Reformed community building upon what our forefathers said and taught what happens if we realise that they got some fundamental things wrong owing to the historical circumstances they lived in and the information they had available to them? Are we still remaining true to the Reformed faith if we rework what they said in the light of modern scholarship which changes beyond recognition what they said?
To say that the Spririt of God will lead the Church into all truth but stopped doing so from the 17th century seems to me to be a little, well…odd.
September 13th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
[...] The Danger of Reformed Traditionalism, Part I By deangonzales Throughout the last several decades many evangelical churches in America have been engaged in a process of reformation analogous to the great Protestant Reformation of the 16th century. Like the early Protestant churches, … RBS Tabletalk – http://rbseminary.wordpress.com [...]
September 15th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Who says the creation account resembles ANE? Why doesn’t ANE resemble the creation accounts? I don’t think the Puritans would have much regard for ANE, and we shouldn’t have much more than they…
But I agree with your main point. Our doctrinal understanding didn’t stop in the 18th century. The older a confession gets, the more we revere it, at times to our detriment…
September 15th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
GCB,
I think Richard’s point was that the 17th century Puritans did not have the same amount of archaeological and historical background material to the Scriptures that we 21st century believers currently possess. This material, when used properly, can shed light on certain texts and teachings of the Old and New Testaments. For example, in his Biblical Theology, John Owen writes an excursus in which he argues that the Hebrew vowel points of the Masoretic text were added at the time of Ezra and should be treated as inspired. We now know that they were added much later, during the Medieval period by Jewish scribes. So here we have an example of an area where 21st century biblical scholarship can make a contribution to our understanding of Scripture that advances the contributions of the Puritans. For more on this subject, see my earlier post Peter Enns, Jeffrey Niehaus, the Ancient Near East, and Inspiration. I do believe that a number of modern discoveries regarding Ancient Near Eastern kingship ideology and international treaty diplomacy have shed light on our understanding of OT theology.
September 15th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
GCB,
Who says the creation account resembles ANE? Why doesn’t ANE resemble the creation accounts?
Valid questions and I don’t want to hijack Prof. Gonzales’ thread in answering. I will post them on my blog, see link below but that will probably be Saturday as I will be too buzy this week to do so.
In the meantime you may be interested in Thoughts on Gen. 1:1-2:4a.
September 21st, 2008 at 2:07 am
Bob,
If the confession can be improved upon, is not the burden of proof placed on the person who would do so? Is there a suspicion that one or more parts of the 1689 LBC may need correction or improvement?
September 23rd, 2008 at 11:42 pm
Bill,
Thanks for the comment. I agree. That was the aim of “Part II” of this series. I try to suggest at least three areas in which I believe the 1689 can be refined and enhanced.
February 19th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
[...] with 33 comments Site has moved. Click here. [...]
September 23rd, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Bob,
What would you say to a Baptist church that has come into the reformed understanding via the Bible? We did not come to these conclusions with confessions but later realized these confessions agreed with the Word of God (Though not covering modern day egalitarian issues) . We are a young reformational church and therefore do not have the traditions of Reformed Baptist, and quite frankly do not want to practice some of those traditions in our church.
1.) We are not charismatic but desire and are working toward that spirit in our worship.
2.) We are not formal in dress or in the beginning of our services. (I know that many RB churches are very quiet, and we respect that). We have many new visitors each Sunday and welcome them rather openly and maybe to some noisily.
3.) Though we hold to the 1689, we do not use it as a basis of acceptance into membership, but will occasionally refer to in a message or refer others to it to clarify certain doctrines.
Would we be considered a newer type of “Reformed Baptist” or simply “Baptist” who hold to reformed theology because we do not hold to certain traditions.
September 23rd, 2009 at 9:23 pm
Mark,
None of us own a patent on the label “Reformed Baptists.” Interestingly, the signers of the 1689 didn’t refer to themselves by that name. I think we’re free to use such titles so long as we add further qualifiers to help others understand our position. The main thing is that we’re true to Scripture. Tradition should serve as our guide but not our ultimate master. I can affirm the teaching of the 1689 Confession. But I don’t think it has the last word on everything. God’s Spirit has continued to teach the church since the 17th century, and I’ve enjoyed learning some important and valid truths from brothers outside my own tradition. So whether or not we cross our t’s or dot our i’s exactly the same, I suspect we share much in common and would enjoy worshiping our Sovereign God together and promoting His fame throughout the earth.
Your servant,
Bob Gonzales