Posted by deangonzales on November 24, 2009
In Recovering the Reformed Confession: Our Theology, Piety, and Practice, R. Scott Clark argues that modern Reformed churches are in the midst of an identity crisis. Like ships that have lost their moorings in the night and becomes aimlessly adrift at sea, they are without course, without compass, and without captain. It is not Clark’s aim, however, to point out problems without offering solutions. Clark not only details what he sees as the modern Reformed malaise, but also lays out his vision of a Reformed recovery. What he champions is a robust, historical and exhaustive return to confessiononalism. Clark’s position is that the Reformed identity is defined by the historic Confession, and by the manner in which the church and her ministers subscribe to those documents.
The first chapter is introductory, and sets the stage for us by defining the terms of the book as Clark will be using them. In using the term “Reformed,” Clark intends to speak of the theology, piety and practice laid out in the six major confessions of the continental and British churches descendent from John Calvin. In this introduction he also begins to level his charges against modern Reformed folk. The essence of his concern is that the theology, piety and practice of the modern Reformed churches include much that would be alien and even antithetical to the theology, piety and practice of their Reformed forefathers.
The remaining chapters of the book are divided into two parts. Part one, which consists of chapters two and three, details the current crisis of Reformed identity. This section of the book is where Clark presents his evidence to support the accusations leveled in his introduction. This evidence is presented as two illegitimate quests. Like David leering at the bathing Bathsheba, it is argued that these two quests have caught the eye of the Reformed churches and have caused them to turn from the good old paths, running headlong toward folly and mischief.
The first element of the crisis is the Quest for Illegitimate Religious Certainty (QIRC). Clark writes, “QIRC is the pursuit to know God in ways he has not revealed himself and to achieve epistemic and moral certainty on questions where such certainty is neither possible nor desirable” (p. 39). In other words, having failed to maintain a robust, historic confessionalism, Reformed Christianity has been truncated. Reformed folk have sought to fill this vacuum with the QIRC, searching for some new sense of security and identity. Clark gives three examples of this QIRC: the desire to make a literal six day/twenty-four hour understanding of creation a test of Reformed orthodoxy, the desire to claim O.T. theocratic law and regulation as binding in exhaustive detail, and the desire to bring new innovations to our understanding of obedience and justification under the heading of covenant moralism. Clark dismisses each of these desires as either misguided and ill informed (creation debates), or contrary to the confession and dangerous (theonomy and covenant moralism). In each case, it is his view that preoccupation with these issues shows how untethered Reformed folk have become from their confession. Clark believes that the confession settles these matters for us, if we would but return to it as our standard and rule.
Clark titles the second half of the crisis, and his third chapter, the Quest for Illegitimate Religious Experience (QIRE). He now turns his critique to the spirit of revivalism as displayed in the Great Awakening and especially as personified by Jonathan Edwards and his modern celebrators. To Clark, revival in any form is incompatible with reformation. Revival seeks the immediate and extraordinary movement of God in the hearts of men, often divorced from the church and her ordinances, and as such is hopelessly infected with pietism. Reformation, conversely, makes due use of ordinary means as prescribed in Scripture and administered weekly in the church, and in these things finds satisfaction and rest.
To Clark, a high view of revival (and the direct, relational communion with God it entails) necessitates a low view of the church (especially of her confession, and of God’s appointed means of grace). This dichotomy runs throughout the book, and is evident in comments like the one found on page 330: “perhaps attendance to the second [worship] service is actually a better indicator of spiritual maturity than are the calluses on our knees and the wear on our Bibles.” Some of Clark’s views will be interacted with critically below, but a word must be said at this point. Clark’s dichotomy between reformation and revival (and thus between the means of grace and private piety) is indicative of the major flaw in his analysis. Why must attendance to the second worship service be set against private prayer and Bible reading? Why must a high view of the means of grace necessitate a low view of private piety? God’s Word, which has the final say in such matters, has a high view of both.
Having diagnosed the crisis, Clark spends the rest of his pages detailing what a healthy recovery should look like. The remaining five chapters form Part Two of the book, titled “The Recovery.” Chapters four and five are essentially a plea for honesty about what the confession says, what the confession means, and what the confession mandates for us in theology, piety, and practice. Chapter six caps this discussion by highlighting the benefits and joys of a robust and full submission to the Reformed confession. The last two chapters of the book offer a very detailed survey of the exegesis, history, and confessional tradition associated with the Lord’s Day and Christian worship. Clark’s vision for rejuvenated Reformed worship revolves around a strict adherence to the Regulative Principle of Worship, a central view of the means of grace, and the reinstitution of a second Lord’s Day worship service.
It is clear that R. Scott Clark is a man of considerable academic ability who has a deep passion for the health and faithfulness of the church. He brings thorough research and a keen mind to nearly all of the topics with which he interacts. There is much value in working through his arguments and considering his conclusions. This does not mean, however, that his conclusions should be agreed with or supported. In fact, he reaches many conclusions that are profoundly misguided and some even dangerous to the theology, piety, and practice of the church.
Before those concerns are addressed, the book’s positive contributions should be acknowledged. Clark effectively calls evangelicals searching for religion with greater substance to take up the banner of being Reformed. His invitation to resist Rome, Constantinople, and the Emergent Village in favor of Geneva is timely and stirring. Reformed folk must strive for the sort of visibility and credibility that will make this a viable option for disillusioned evangelicals.
Clark is correct, as well, when he argues for the inevitability and general benefits of being confessional. Under his relentless logic, the maxim “no creed but Scripture” is exposed as a fallacy. Furthermore, this book contains considerable amounts of very sound and helpful exegetical and historical research. Of special note is the logical and convincing exegesis of John 4:23-24, and the excellent survey of the Christian Sabbath from Biblical, confessional, and historical perspectives.
However, as previously noted, these positive elements are found in the midst of some troubling material. There are issues that Clark deals with which deserve a response beyond the scope of this review. Many of these issues, such as his extreme application of the Regulative Principle of Worship and his strict dichotomy between objective and subjective religious experiences are urgent in that they bear directly on church practice. In addition to the criticism of his views on the QIRE offered above, only one area of concern will be highlighted here for criticism.
Even as he criticizes the QIRC and the QIRE, there is a quest which Clark himself undertakes in Recovering the Reformed Confession. We can call this the Quest for Illegitimate Religious Traditionalism (QIRT). The QIRT is the desire to settle all questions of theology, piety and practice by total submission to the historic Reformed confession, as interpreted by the animus imponentis. This is an illegitimate quest and ought not be pursued for three reasons.
First, it is an illegitimate quest because it muddles the theological method. Confessions, like any work that systematizes the truths of Scripture, are always to be derived from sound exegesis. It is exegesis, with subordinate input from historical theology, which must always be the foundation of the church’s theology.
Unfortunately, this does not seem to be the operative method for R. Scott Clark. It seems that for Clark, the confession is authoritative. It is the confession, interpreted by history, which drives exegesis. The reader begins to get a flavor of this muddled method when Clark remarks, “Not every appeal to Scripture is Reformed or reforming. Any appeal to Scripture that fundamentally overturns what it is to be Reformed cannot itself be a Reformed appeal to Scripture” (p. 25). If this were the only such statement in the book, it might be forgiven as slightly misguided zeal for one’s heritage, but this is not an isolated sentiment.
A more direct example of this muddled method occurs when Clark sets out to build exegetical evidence for his strict interpretation of the Regulative Principle of Worship. Clark argues that the Regulative Principle requires instruments and uninspired songs to be abandoned; while at the same time he insists on a mandatory second worship service. On pages 337-338, he surveys texts from Genesis, Exodus, Ezra, 1 Chronicles, and the Psalms as they relate to these issues. His reading of these texts is clearly shaped and submitted to confessional and historical concerns. He is able in just a few sentences to dismiss any exegetical content that does not support his agenda as merely typological, while insisting that any exegetical material that does support his agenda has abiding validity. The following passage is typical: “Psalm 141:2 is attributed to King David, and he speaks of ‘lifting up’ his hands ‘as the evening sacrifice.’ Of course, these passages were given during the church’s typological period so they apply to us only figuratively. Christ is our sacrifice, our priest, and our temple. Nevertheless, they do give evidence that the ‘morning and evening’ pattern of creation has some continuing place in our re-creation” (pp. 337-338). In other words, any material from the Old Testament that does not support the agenda (clear use of instruments, composing new songs) is typological and any material that does support the agenda (morning and evening pattern of worship) establishes a compelling pattern. Clark’s exegesis is the servant of his systematic and historical theology, thus confusing the proper theological method.
Second, this QIRT is illegitimate because Clark crosses the line into a dangerous confessionalism. “Dangerous” is a strong word, but it is appropriate when the living Word of God is made to share its throne as our supreme authority with a man-made document. “Is not my word like a fire?” says the LORD, “and like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces?” Confessions are valuable, and they may even be precious to us. But they are not like fire. They are not a discerner of the heart. They are not God-breathed.
The opponents of the use of a confession of faith usually accuse its proponents of confessionalism, which is the tendency to give a confession of faith equal or higher authority than the Scriptures. This is generally a false charge, but in the case of R. Scott Clark, it seems sadly appropriate.
The reader begins to get uncomfortable early on, when Clark remarks that “…sola scriptura [does] not teach that the Bible means what one says it does, but that the Scriptures, being God’s Word, form the church, and the church in subjection to the Scriptures is able to interpret them well enough to decide controversies”(pp. 25-6). While Clark’s zeal for ecclesiastical authority may make some uncomfortable, this passage could be taken as nothing more than a proper condemnation of the widespread distortion of sola scriptura into solo scriptura. If Clark simply set out to critique the “Tradition 0” zeitgeist, and to build a better understanding of “Tradition I,” there would no reason for alarm. Although this healthy return to Tradition 1 is Clark’s stated goal, he seems to have overshot that mark. A statement such as the one made brazenly and with only weak qualification on page 178, that “the authority of the confession is…tantamount to that of Scripture, assuming that a given confession is biblical,” leaves no doubt as to whether R. Scott Clark has crossed a line that ought not to be crossed.
This quote is taken from the context of Clark’s interaction with the writings of R. B. Kuiper. Writing in 1926, Kuiper objected to the practice of the ecclesiastical courts in appealing to the confession as authoritative, without feeling the need to check the confession against Scripture. It was Kuiper’s concern that this practice might give the impression that the church had adopted a dangerous confessionalism, wherein the confession was nearly “tantamount” to Scripture. Clark’s reply, by way of the animus imponentis, is that the confession is indeed tantamount to Scripture in authority.
Clark can make this assertion with a straight face (one assumes) because he qualifies it by saying that the confession must, of course, be Biblical (quia subscription). Even ignoring the monstrous problem of getting any two Christians to agree that a given confession is utterly Biblical in the sort of exhaustive detail required to make such a view tenable, equating the authority of the confession with that of the Bible evidences a profound misunderstanding of why the Bible is authoritative. The Bible is not authoritative simply because it is true and accurate in the sort of strict forensic way that can be reproduced in a confession, but because it is the living Word of God Almighty. The Word’s authority is derived from its God breathed, self-attesting character. A man can and should faithfully confess the truths he learns from God’s Word, but he cannot replicate its authority. The authority of the confession is authoritative only in so far (quatenus subscription) as it states what can be clearly shown in the Scriptures. Thus, even if it is completely Biblical, the authority of the confession is never tantamount to that of God’s Word. The cleanest mirror in all the world is still just a reflection; it is never on equal footing with reality.
Third, the QIRT is illegitimate because it simply cannot be consistently maintained. Clark paints a romantic picture of quia subscription and heady conformity to the animus imponentis which simply does not match reality. Consistency cannot even be maintained within the pages of Recovering the Reformed Confession. On page 318 he addresses the diversity in how the Reformed churches have understood the Sabbath. If there is diversity on an issue as central to our theology, piety, and practice as the Sabbath, can we really speak of the Reformed Confession in the singular tense? Exactly which understanding of the Sabbath is to be recovered? Clark is aware of this inconsistency and seeks to alleviate it by appealing to the substantive agreement on the main points of the Sabbath in the Reformed confession. This is a fine tactic for one holding to quatenus subscription, but Clark has already overplayed his hand at this point.
Clark has painted himself into a corner by way of his own strident confessionalism. It is not consistent to state that “…the Scriptures, being God’s Word, form the church, and the church in subjection to the Scriptures is able to interpret them well enough to decide controversies” (p. 26), yet on page 270 suggest that the disagreements between the a capella Psalter crowd and the more mainstream Reformed worshipers be settled by a compromise. Again, this may be a fine and equatable way for a church to settle a dispute, but why does Clark get to break his own rules at this point?
These three concerns make up the Quest for Illegitimate Religious Traditionalism. Clark’s zeal in these matters is beyond question, and his earnest pursuit of what he believes would be a more healthy and faithful Church is admirable. However, his muddled theological approach, his dangerous confessionalism, and his inconsistency expose this quest as illegitimate. It should be repeated again that this quest is not isolated. Clark pushes too far in several directions, though none of them as directly inappropriate as in this QIRT. Even with these major concerns, this is a book which ought to be read by any who attach the adjective Reformed to their denominational identity. Iron sharpens iron, and R. Scott Clark has issued a challenge to seriously consider the foundations of our theology, piety and practice. May all God’s people be sharper for it, and may they faithfully confess the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ until He gathers them home.
Nicolas Alford, Student
Reformed Baptist Seminary
Posted by deangonzales on September 11, 2008
In our previous post, I sought to caution against an unbridled enthusiasm for and unquestioning commitment to our Confession of Faith in particular or our Reformed heritage in general that can subtly weaken our commitment to sola Scriptura. In general, I believe our Confession and Reformed heritage reflect accurately the teachings and emphases of Scripture. But I am not convinced the Reformed tradition as embodied in our Confession is accurate or balanced 100% of the time. (If it were, it would carry an authority equal with Scripture.) In this post, I want to suggest some ways in which we can demonstrate our commitment to sola Scriptura by building upon and enhancing the rich Reformed heritage we’ve inherited from our Reformed, Puritan and Baptist forefathers. Although I’ll be recommending some changes to the 1698 London Baptist Confession of Faith in particular, I think some of the principles on which I base my recommendations will apply to other Reformed symbols as well.
So here’s where “the rubber meets the road.” It’s one thing to affirm one’s commitment to sola Scriptura and offer a general warning against an imbalanced commitment to one’s Confession of Faith. Most won’t object too strongly. It’s quite another thing, however, to venture suggestions as to how one’s Confession of Faith might have some deficiencies that need improvement. I don’t expect that my readers will fully agree with all of my suggestions—at least immediately. But I do hope that you’ll give the matter careful prayer and reflection. In general, I think there are at least three ways in which the 1689 London Baptist Confession can be improved.
1. Updating the Language of the Confession
Most of the evangelical church has come to the realization that the 1611 King James Version of the Bible is outdated and fails to communicate well to people in the twenty-first century. Accordingly, many of our churches use a modern translation of Scripture (NAS, NKJV, NIV, ESV, etc.). This change, which makes God’s revelation available in the common tongue, is both Scriptural (Deut. 31:11-14; 1 Cor. 14:2-5, 13-19, 23-33) and Confessional (WCF/Savoy/LBC 1.8). Isn’t it time that we update the language our 1689 Confession? Thankfully, some have offered or are working on a modern version. But, as some have pointed out, once we update the 1689 Confession, it ceases to be a “1689” Confession. True enough. Nevertheless, we should still feel constrained to confess our faith to our generation. Ideally, it would be nice if Reformed Baptist churches could band together and work on a new confession for the twenty-first century. But present circumstances may not be conducive to such a unified effort. Maybe the best strategy for local churches is to adopt a modernized version of the 1689 (or something similar and essentially compatible with its theology) for use in teaching God’s people as well as publishing its doctrinal convictions to the world at large while at the same time continuing to affirm the old 1689 (much like we continue to affirm the Apostles’ or Nicene creeds).
2. Adding Theological Affirmations to the Confession
The second area of change involves adding formulations to address important issues that for whatever reason our Puritan forefathers failed to address adequately. Here is where I want to focus the majority of our attention. Creeds and confessions are usually born out of circumstances that threaten the doctrinal and practical integrity of the church. In other words, historically creeds and confession have been the church’s response to erroneous or heretical teachings that arise from within or without the church. In the Early Church, the debates focused largely on Christology. Hence, the great Christological creeds of Nicene and Chalcedon. During the Reformation, the Lutheran and continental Reformed symbols addressed questions related to religious authority, divine sovereignty and human responsibility, the nature and means of justification, and the nature of the sacraments contra Roman Catholic tradition. The English Puritans brought further refinements to the Reformed tradition in addressing issues related to church government and corporate worship in response to what they perceived to be errors in the Anglican Church. Since many of the doctrinal positions in the historical creeds and confessions were conditioned or prompted by particular errors or circumstances that gave rise to the particular creed or confession, we shouldn’t assume that one creed or one confession of faith sufficiently addresses every conceivable error or circumstance that we might face today. Consequently, there may be “holes” that need to be filled. There may be important issues that the modern church today faces, which, for one reason or another, were not addressed by our Puritan Baptist forefathers.
Let me offer just three examples (there might be others). First, both the Savoy and also 1689 unfortunately deleted two entire paragraphs from the Westminster Confession’s chapter on marriage. The WCF ch. 24 (which is ch. 25 in the Savoy and 1689) includes two paragraphs that address the grounds for divorce and remarriage. For some reason, both the Savoy and 1689 omit these paragraphs. I’m not a historian, so I can’t venture a guess for the rationale of this omission. In his exposition of the 1689, Dr. Samuel Waldron notes this omission and labels it inexcusable. I agree and think it needs to be remedied. Perhaps the easiest way to remedy the problem would be to reassert the missing paragraphs from the WCF.
The second example has to do with the question of male and female roles in the church, in the family, and in society. Feminism has been “baptized” by some pastors and theologians and is making inroads into the modern church. I don’t believe any of the English Puritan-Reformed confessions adequately addresses this issue, which is being hotly debated today. Of course, the biblical roles of men and women were generally assumed and practiced to a greater degree in seventeenth century England than in twenty-first century America. But I think Reformed Baptists would do well to follow other conservative evangelicals who have given a confessional response to today’s aberrations.
The third example under this heading relates to evangelistic outreach and missions. In my opinion, the WCF, Savoy, and 1689 fail to give adequate expression and emphasis to the church’s responsibility to take the gospel to all the nations. When one turns to the chapter entitled “Of the church” (WCF ch. 25; Savoy & 1689, ch. 26), he finds an exposition of the nature of the church universal and local, its authority, its institution, its membership, its government, its worship, and its fraternal relations. But he searches in vain for a clear and comprehensive summary of the church’s duty to publish the gospel outside the four walls of the sanctuary. I suppose one might infer the Great Commission mandate from the allusions to the ministry or preaching of the word (26.10, 11). But in the context, the focus appears to be on preaching in the church, not on proclaiming the gospel outside the church in order to make disciples and plant new churches. The Savoy and 1689 do add a chapter (ch. 20) not contained in the WCF entitled, “Of the gospel and of the extent of the grace thereof.” But though this chapter focuses on the necessity and sufficiency of special revelation, it fails give a clear and explicit emphasis on the church’s and the Christian’s responsibility to propagate that revelation.
Why this seeming lack of emphasis on evangelistic outreach and missions in the seventeenth century Puritan-Reformed confessions? I am not an expert in church history, so I can only speculate. I don’t believe it was because of a lack of concern for the lost or a lack of conviction that God would ensure Christ’s gospel reached the ends of the earth. Perhaps the Reformers and the Puritans felt the need to give a higher priority to the church’s reformation than to its outreach to the world. Deer rifles are made for hunting deer. However, if someone gives you a broken deer rifle as a gift, you have to fix the rifle before you take it hunting. In the same way, the church was in terrible disrepair. The gospel itself had been terribly distorted. Therefore, before the Reformers and Puritans could focus their attention outwardly, they had to focus their attention inwardly on the church. This may be one reason why the so-called “three marks of a true church,” which Calvin expounds in his Institutes (Book IV, 1.7-9) and many in the Reformed tradition continue to employ, do not include the church’s calling and obligation to take the gospel into all the world.
Another possible reason for the Reformers’ and Puritans’ lack of emphasis on evangelistic outreach and missions may be the fact that they lived in a sacral society (a kind of Christian theocracy). In such a society, every citizen was a member of the church and most would have attended some church. And yet, many of these citizens were probably lost. Since a good percentage of these lost citizens were attending church, it was not so necessary for the church to “reach out.” Under such circumstances, the pastor did much evangelism from the pulpit. That’s why we have so many excellent evangelistic sermons and books by the Reformers and the Puritans. This also explains why there were sometimes mass conversions among the churches during periods of revival. And, as I say, I believe this may be part of the explanation why we don’t find a big emphasis on outreach or missions in our Reformed Confession of Faith. It’s there implicitly, but not explicitly.
It’s not my purpose to critique Calvin or the Puritans on their sacral view of society. I do, however, want to highlight the fact that we no longer live in such a society. Our society is rapidly becoming pagan and pluralistic. It much more resembles the Rome of Paul’s day than the Geneva of Calvin’s day. Therefore, we shouldn’t expect the Reformed tradition of Calvin or of the Puritans to say everything we need to know about evangelism and missions today. Accordingly, I would recommend that our Reformed churches make more plain to our sister evangelical churches as well as to the world at large our convictions regarding evangelistic and missionary outreach. An entire paragraph (or two) could be added to ch. 26 “Of the church.” Or, as Tom Nettles has elsewhere suggested, phrases could be inserted into the four paragraphs of ch. 20 “Of the gospel and of the extent of the grace thereof” (see “A Suggested Addition to the Second London Confession”). But one way or another, I believe the 1689 needs to be augmented in this area.
What’s the point I’m driving at? If we really want a biblical church, we must be more than a 1689 Reformed Baptist Church. We must not be less than that. But we must be more than that as well! Especially, in giving proper emphasis to biblical evangelism and missions! As John Frame has properly remarked, “A church that is not preoccupied with reaching the unsaved is not merely a weak church; it is not properly a church at all.”
3. Making Modest Refinements to Some Doctrinal Formulae
This point, I think, definitely requires the most caution and care. I can think of a few areas in the Confession in which greater refinement in doctrinal formulae could be helpful. For example, Confession’s depiction of the Scripture’s as infallible (1.1) and divinely authoritative (1.4) could use further clarification in light of modern attacks on the inerrancy of Scripture. Confession’s assertion that God is “without body, parts or passions” needs clarification so as not to leave the impression that God is incapable of responding emotively. Moreover, I think some of the 1689’s statements related to covenant theology could use some fine-tuning. The chapter dealing with worship (ch. 22) could be improved in order to expand on the teaching of chapter 1.6 and address some of the confusion surrounding the Regulative Principle of Worship and its application. But since I’m running out of space (and perhaps the reader’s good favor), I think I’ll leave any elaboration of this point for another occasion.
In closing, I want to leave the reader with three exhortations:
(1) Let us strive to maintain our highest commitment to the Holy Scriptures as the pattern for church doctrine and practice.
As a Reformed Baptist missionary to the Far East reminded our churches, it’s not enough to go back to our Puritan and Reformed traditions. We need to go back to the apostolic traditions as they are expounded and fleshed out in the Book of Acts. We must never allow our deep respect for our Reformed heritage to hinder us from re-examining our faith and practice in light of God’s Word. John Murray underscores this point when he remarks,
When any generation is content to rely upon its theological heritage and refuses to explore for itself the riches of divine revelation, then declension is already under way and heterodoxy will be the lot of the succeeding generation.
(2) Let us be willing to learn from other church traditions as well as our own.
As Reformed Baptists, we don’t claim to have a corner on the truth. We simply believe that as far as we know, we are more biblical than other traditions. (If we didn’t believe that, then we’d need to change traditions.) But there are two ways of looking at that position: (1) we’re ahead of all other churches in every point of doctrine and practice; or (2) we’re ahead of other churches in many but not all points of doctrine and practice. Personally, I believe the latter of these two is truer to reality. We have a lot to bring to the table. But I do not believe we’re the only denomination or tradition qualified to teach others. I genuinely believe that there are probably a number of things we can learn from other churches that may not be entirely committed to our tradition. As one Reformed brother has wisely observed,
It is a short, and perilous step from saying, “We want to do everything Biblically” to saying, “Everything we do is biblical.” The one is from God’s grace; the other is proud and can lead to stubbornness.
(3) Let us not be uncritical in our study of our Confession of Faith
Sometimes, the word “critical” is used in a negative sense. But I’m using it in a more positive sense, as that which is marked by careful judgment and evaluation. Both the Scripture and our Confession encourage us to be critical in our attitude towards religious teaching:
Now [the Bereans] were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so (Acts 17:11).
God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in any thing contrary to his Word, or not contained in it. So that to believe such doctrines, or obey such commands out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience; and the requiring of an implicit faith, and absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience and reason also (LBC XXI, 2)
Bob Gonzales, Dean
Reformed Baptist Seminary
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
