Perhaps the ruckus over Jason Stellman’s decision has passed but one response by Peter Leithart needs some attention, if only because it highlights a general problem in Reformed and Presbyterian circles. It is the way that Reformed Protestantism sits lightly with folks who are officers in Reformed and Presbyterian communions. Not to pick on anyone in particular, but also not to hide behind vagaries, this problem is not Leithart’s by himself. It is also part of the gift mix that John Frame and Tim Keller have bequeathed to many of their readers and fans.
The problem specifically is one identifying more with the Bible than tradition, relying more on exegesis than the common confession of a Reformed communion, exploring more existing church and intellectual concerns than mining paths trod by saints in the past.
Here is Leithart’s version of this impulse (in the context of Stellman’s decision):
Confessionalists, after all, place a great deal of emphasis on the tradition of Reformed theology, embodied especially in Reformed confessions. Throughout the debates of the past few years, I have presented mainly biblical arguments for my positions, and kept historical concerns subordinate. My opponents have typically been much more interested in testing my views by the Westminster Confession. The touchstone of their theology is a piece of the Reformed tradition as much as, and in some cases more than, Scripture. Confessionalists claim that the Confession provides standard exegesis of Scripture, to which Reformed theologians have to submit. Confessional Reformed theology thus has a natural affinity for Rome that biblicists like me don’t share. Confessionalists want the Confession to be a paper Pope. It’s not surprising that some find the paper Pope inadequate, and go searching for a live one. (If, as some will charge, Scripture is a paper Pope, it’s one whose ring I gladly kiss.)
Behind this Confessionalist elevation of tradition (in practice, over Scripture) is a broader tendency related to what I have critiqued elsewhere as “tragic metaphysics,” the notion that the original and old is necessarily preferable to the derived and the new. In its Trinitarian dogma, Christianity says the opposite: The Son, though He comes from the Father, is equal to the Father in every respect; in fact, there is no pure, unsupplemented origin, because there can be no Father without a Son. It says the opposite too in its eschatology: The golden age is not lost in the unrecoverable past but ahead of us in an eschatological future. Its Trinitarian theology and eschatology give Christian faith an open-endedness that can be unsettling. It’s unnerving to have to seek foundations in a city that is yet to come. (According to Fergus Kerr, this is exactly what Thomas says –Thomas is an “eschatological foundationalist.”)
When I read an argument like this I wonder whether someone like Leithart could just as easily minister in a Free Methodist Church as among Presbyterians. After all, lots of Protestants claim to be biblical and don’t let the past affect what is best for the church today. Or what about the Southern Baptist Convention? Is that set of congregations just as good as the United Reformed Churches? Or could it be that when push comes to shove, a fellow like Leithart really does identify with the Reformed tradition? That something really does differentiate Reformed from other Protestant communions?
I have no idea what Leithart’s response might be to a question about whether to minister as a Presbyterian or Lutheran. But I suspect, even hope, that he would say that Reformed Protestantism is superior in its teaching and practices to other Protestant churches.
If so, it would be a welcome development if he would pay back a little into the Presbyterian heritage fund. I mean, it is one thing to teach and defend the Reformed confessions and another to sit back and let your professional colleagues do it, all the while benefitting from at least some of their labors. It is also one thing to seek unity and discipline in a Reformed communion (through the heavy lifting of service at church assemblies) and allow the efforts of others to provide a cushion for you to do your own work. Furthermore, it is one thing to build on insights of generations of theologians and pastors (after all, Leithart isn’t starting from scratch, not even with his exegesis) and not show some gratitude for what has gone before.
Not everyone has to do the same amount of work or heritage maintenance. But is it too much to ask for everyone to be pulling in the same direction?
It is a free country, of course, and we have Reformed communions that are more or less confessional. So Leithart doesn’t have to do anything to keep up with his teaching, preaching, blogging, and writing. But for the sake of truth in advertising, identifying with his Presbyterian credentials, communicants, and past would certainly be desirable. It would even be responsible.
Postscript: I hesitated to employ “parasitic” in the post’s title but wanted to maintain the alliteration. “Free-riding” is obviously less inflammatory but at least I (always gracious) didn’t use “bloodsucking.”
99 Comments
Hair-splitting Alert
Dr. Hart,
I know that this is a blog, rather than a peer reviewed journal, but I think your statement “The problem specifically is one identifying more with the Bible than tradition” is subject to significant misunderstanding. Put that way, I as a Minister in the OPC would say that I identify more with the Bible than with tradition. Why would any Protestant want to identify equally with the Word of God and the words of man about the Word of God?
A better way to state the contrast is between my private interpretation of the Bible and the public interpretation of Scripture and development of Systematic Theology that is received and confessed by the Reformed Churches. It is the tendency of some Bible scholars to exalt their own private judgments (I don’t know Dr. Leithart and therefore am not directing this toward him) without sufficient regard to Historical, Systematic, and Confessional theology that is causing so much confusion among evangelicals today.
Best wishes,
David
David, split hair accepted and conditioned.
But surely there are those Confessional sorts who more or less do what Leithart says. Which, of course, raises other issues. On what authority are we to decide which confession we are to use? Should we go back to the writings of the Church Fathers or the Reformation Fathers. After all, the Reformers went back to the Church Fathers. Simply put, without a confession we are floating on theological waters with no anchor, but then we need to have an anchor for the confession itself.
Richard, surely we aren’t asking these questions once we have taken subscription vows to a Reformed confession? If you have these questions, you don’t pursue ordination.
“It is also one thing to seek unity and discipline in a Reformed communion (through the heavy lifting of service at church assemblies)…”
Of the 15-16 meetings of the PNW presbytery that have happened since I have been here, Peter has been at all but a few (i.e. missing no more than any other presbyter). He also serves on various committees, participates in floor discussions and deliberations, and even drinks beers with folks afterwards. He is no remora to the shark that is the PNW presbytery.
Richard, simply out, the confessions are footnoted with the Bible, which means the Bible is their anchor.
D. G. Hart: Richard, surely we aren’t asking these questions once we have taken subscription vows to a Reformed confession? If you have these questions, you don’t pursue ordination.
RS: Not necessarily. While the truth does not change, men and their understandings do. It is also true that God just may be able to give more clarity on certain issues in the future.
Zrim: Richard, simply out, the confessions are footnoted with the Bible, which means the Bible is their anchor.
RS: So footnoting with references to the Bible means that those writing the confession are inerrant in their time and will be until eternity?
Richard, huh? Who said inerrant? Certainly not those of us who champion the 2k revisions. But the point is that the confessions are the result of exegetical (and historical) spade work.
When it comes to guys like Leithart, I always stumble on the “non-confessional reformed” tree in the road. One of the things that allows us reformed to be reformed is the confessions of Scripture to which we hold. You slip that mooring and we aren’t docked with Calvin and company anymore. Now we can lay anchor wherever the wind blows us…but maybe that’s the point.
Richard, men change their understandings and they let their brethren know about it. If you are an Edwards fan, you may be prone to congregationalist polity. But even in congregations where the members rule, a minister who changed his views might let the others know before simply publishing them, or before constantly tweaking the church’s covenant.
D. G. Hart: Richard, men change their understandings and they let their brethren know about it. If you are an Edwards fan, you may be prone to congregationalist polity. But even in congregations where the members rule, a minister who changed his views might let the others know before simply publishing them, or before constantly tweaking the church’s covenant.
RS: I am just trying to communicate that confessions are not inerrant and perhaps they could be visited again and again rather than having them set in stone until eternity. Did the ministers who wrote Westminster ever change their views or were they immutable from 1647 until they died?
I think the key point missed in Leithart’s charge that Reformed confessionalism has a paper-papal affinity with Rome is HUMILITY. To be confessionally Reformed is to be humble; it is to accept sola Scriptura as an act that is not individualistic, but communal. It is to bow to the wisdom of one’s elders, who themselves are sitting with you at the foot of our common Scriptural master, and to recognize that all of our best interpretations are always that, interpretations and applications that are not perfect nor infallible, yet sufficient for pilgrims on the way.
The biblicist impulse IS the individualistic caricature of the Reformation that Rome likes to foist upon us.
Sadly, Reformed folks too often stumble into pride (don’t we all), and do a very poor job of defending their rather explicit and detailed confessions as humble testimony to the teaching of Scripture. Yes, we subscribe and are committed to these confessions; but we recognize that as important as they may be as guiding summary statements, they are not Scripture, but servants of Scripture.
And so, let us pray for a generation of officers and churchmen who are passionate and humble in their defense of sola Scriptura and the confessional teachings that have been bequeathed to us.
It seems that the issue is one he is avoiding. He didn’t take ordination vows on just the bible. He took them on the Westminster standards. In the Presbyterian tradition, the standards are the accepted teachings of scripture to be a Presbyterian. The “paper pope” is one he swore an oath to submit himself to. If they’re wrong, then step down. If the new is to be preferred to the old (which is a dangerous claim as the old has the luxury of being verified by more people through history than individual novelty) then don’t become ordained in any historical tradition. His response seems to me to be a last ditch effort to justify his willful departure from the documents he was ordained by. Bleh.
This is a real question. I don’t know the answer. Do the Scripture references given for the confessional statements have the same authority as the propositions themselves? If so, maybe we can figure out what the Bible references mean by reading back to see what the relevant part of the Confession says. But if different publications of the Confessions come with different proof-texts, then interpretation will be more difficult.
Heb. 12:14.
Can it be proven that the holiness without which we cannot see the Lord is that “more and more” variety of which the Confession speaks? Is our hope Christ’s perfect holiness plus also an incremental holiness? And if Christ’s holiness is not enough for access to holy God, just how much additional holiness will the Spirit need to give us?
mark mcculley: This is a real question. I don’t know the answer. Do the Scripture references given for the confessional statements have the same authority as the propositions themselves? If so, maybe we can figure out what the Bible references mean by reading back to see what the relevant part of the Confession says. But if different publications of the Confessions come with different proof-texts, then interpretation will be more difficult.
Heb. 12:14.
Can it be proven that the holiness without which we cannot see the Lord is that “more and more” variety of which the Confession speaks? Is our hope Christ’s perfect holiness plus also an incremental holiness? And if Christ’s holiness is not enough for access to holy God, just how much additional holiness will the Spirit need to give us?
RS: But the access to a holy God only makes us desire more holiness. It is not that we need more holiness for justification, but justification and union with Christ makes us hunger and long for more holiness.
Darryl, I take your point to be that if it weren’t for the confessionalists, there wouldn’t be Presby&Ref churches for guys like Leithart to leech off of. That may be.
But as a fellow confessionalist (overagainst a “more-or-less biblicist” like Leithart & Frame), I’d like to say more than that officers in Presby&Ref congregations/denoms should agree that Reformed Protestantism is superior to others (by which we mean, above other things, “more biblical”), and that they should labor to teach and defend the confessions (by which we mean “what the churches agree is the teaching of Scripture”).
I mean, suppose Leithart and/or Frame could genuinely do both (agree RefProt is superior, and teach and defend it)? Does that make them confessionalists? I don’t think it does.
What I want to say *more* is: that officers (and members) should hold the necessity and authority of the Reformed confession differently than L&F do. This seems to be real dividing issue, wouldn’t you say?
Uhh, ever read Leithart’s views on baptism? I don’t think they qualify as P&R and that’s to put it mildly.
IOW the man can say what he wants, but his credibility as P&R is zip.
But I think Reformed Protestantism sits rather lightly among the FV so no surprise there.
Richard, and my point is that if you are simply trying to be biblical then you may as well be a Methodist, unless you think the Reformed tradition interprets the Bible better than Wesleyans. If that’s the case, then let’s see a little defense of the tradition.
Baus, I don’t know if Frame and Leithart would agree that Ref. Prot. is superior. Frame certainly hasn’t shown that in his book Evangelical Reunion or in his criticisms of confessionalists.
Leithart sound a great deal like Alexander Campbell and Barton Stone.
D. G. Hart:
Richard, and my point is that if you are simply trying to be biblical then you may as well be a Methodist,
RS: I certainly hope you don’t really mean that.
D.G. Hart: unless you think the Reformed tradition interprets the Bible better than Wesleyans. If that’s the case, then let’s see a little defense of the tradition.
RS: This is what I am arguing against. Of course I think that the Reformed tradition interprets the Bible better than the Wesleyans, but that is because of what the Bible teaches. I don’t believe that the Reformed tradition is better than another tradition for any other reason that they are closer to the Bible. But I must believe what the Bible teaches because it is what the Word of God says rather than believe it because that is what tradition says. The latter is nothing more than what Rome used to lead many astray. I would also argue that the writers of the confessions hold to the view that we must believe what the Bible teaches as our priority and we are to believe it because of the inward work of the Spirit and our resting wholly in God rather than because another human or group of humans have written it.
WCF Chapter I
IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.[9]
V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture.[10] And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.[11]
Richard, where does the Bible say what WCF says in chap.1? Why do you fly to the confession here when you so often quote Scripture at the rest of your interlocutors?
So now you’re a confessionalst. Great. Welcome to the club. Just give up Edwards and you’ll be fine.
This is unrelated to the OP but I just read Secular Faith for the second time now. I think I appreciated it more this time than I did two or three years ago, yet I also am more skeptical of certain parts. Historical case studies can only go so far, and the development of the positive view in the last chapter relies substantially on a general but brief summary of Daniel’s life in exile. What I’d love to see is a more thorough development and defense of this minority view. It would be nice to see, for example, an edited volume developing the positive theory (assuming one could find more contributors than D.G. Hart…), as “Christian secularism” is either absent or assumed false in virtually every Reformed social and political discussion or debate that I’ve come across.
(For example, I just read Mohler’s..lackluster…Culture Shift, where he “refutes” the very possibility of secularity first by claiming secularity is necessarily anti-religious, then claiming (in a strange inconsistency) that it is necessarily non-existent because it requires (w-v-?) neutrality, and neutrality is impossible…though even more strangely a few pages later he also says we have to tolerate some degree of secularity in politics, especially because we Christians will make secular arguments in politics reasoning from time to time…huh? Anyway, he seems oblivious to the fact that some Reformed have defended forms of secularity, a proposal he marks as anti-religious (or necessarily non-existent–he can’t decide). It is ironic that in a book subtitled “The battle for the moral heart of America” the target of the first chapter would be D.G. Hart as much as any stock liberal or atheist political theorist!!)
Why is being a Confessional minister so difficult for some people to understand or accept?
Really getting tired of reading the same nonsense accusation (i.e. “You must believe that the Westminster Standards are inerrant” or some version of that canard). Our Creeds and Confessions are subordinate standards, but they are still standards nonetheless. And the church down through the centuries/millenia has always had standards for good reason.
I, for one, get more than a tad suspicious whenever I hear someone go to the ‘no creed but Christ’ card (or even the ever pious-sounding, “Just the Bible/exegesis” card for that matter). Makes me wonder why they have such a beef with the Standards in the first place.
Got a better Confession/Creed? Let’s see it.
No? Didn’t think so.
D. G. Hart: Richard, where does the Bible say what WCF says in chap.1?
RS: 2PE 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. 2TI 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. 1JO 5:9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. 1 TH 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
D.G. Hart: Why do you fly to the confession here when you so often quote Scripture at the rest of your interlocutors?
RS: Just to show you that the writers of the confession agree with my position and not yours (what appears to be yours). We are not to believe proposition A (whatever it is) simply because it is taught in a confession, but we are to believe that God says it because God says it. Confessions are a guide to that.
D.G. Hart: So now you’re a confessionalst. Great. Welcome to the club.
RS: Alway have been (since on this board and before) in the sense of WCF chapter I. Thanks.
D.G. Hart: Just give up Edwards and you’ll be fine.
RS: My affections for Edwards and the God He exalts in his writings are way too high to do such a horrible thing. Besides, my will is not free to do so.
Andy Schreiber: Why is being a Confessional minister so difficult for some people to understand or accept?
RS: Understand that my answers will be somewhat tongue in cheek, but hopefully there may be a point or two that may help you with why some wrestle with the confessions as an absolute standard of some sort.
Andy: Really getting tired of reading the same nonsense accusation (i.e. “You must believe that the Westminster Standards are inerrant” or some version of that canard).
RS: It appears that you believe that the Westminster Standards have errors. So where are those errors and why do you hold to a document with admitted errors? Do you believe that the purest of churches can so degenerate and become no churches of Christ, but rather synagogues of Satan? (WCF ch XXV:V) If so, then couldn’t a document written by men several hundred years ago actually be used in the wrong way with wrong interpretations? If so, then couldn’t those men have been wrong at some points? Do you believe that the Pope of Rome is the antichrist, a man of sin, and a son of perdition that exalts himself against Christ and all that is called God? WCF XXV: VI)
Andy: Our Creeds and Confessions are subordinate standards, but they are still standards nonetheless. And the church down through the centuries/millenia has always had standards for good reason.
RS: If they are subordinate standards, then isn’t it more important to hold to the Scriptures (of which the Creeds and Confesssions are subordinate to) with even more tenacity?
Andy: I, for one, get more than a tad suspicious whenever I hear someone go to the ‘no creed but Christ’ card (or even the ever pious-sounding, “Just the Bible/exegesis” card for that matter). Makes me wonder why they have such a beef with the Standards in the first place.
RS: Maybe they have done some serious exegesis and truly differ with Creeds and Confessions in a few places and that is their beef.
Andy: Got a better Confession/Creed? Let’s see it.
RS: Sure, I have one and your Creed and Confession is subordinate to it. In fact, the WCF says you must believe what Scritpure says and that God teaches it.
Andy: No? Didn’t think so.
RS: Not so fast.
Richard, thanks for the response (even if somewhat tongue-in-cheek).
My reply to such would simply be as follows:
If someone has a serious problem with the Westminster Standards, that person should do one of two things:
1. Seek ordination elsewhere (i.e. not in the PCA or OPC).
or
2. If he is already ordained in the PCA or OPC, he should make honor his ordination vows & make his exceptions/divergence in views known to his colleagues and then (if they have deemed his exceptions/divergence to be acceptable) take it upon himself to begin the process of appealing for the Standards to be amended.
If someone’s exceptions have to do with justification by faith alone (e.g. FV), the Sacraments (which were no small matter to the Reformers or the Westminster Divines), or church polity (e.g. the ordination of deaconesses), then he should not expect his exceptions to be easily accepted, if at all. Those are all pretty important issues in the life of the church.
“Presbyterian” or “Reformed” are not defined by whatever any individual personally likes, believes, practices, or prefers. Seems to me that (like with many things in life) some are prone to mentally define what a good Presbyterian is by their own devises, not Confessionally. And that is half the problem, IMO.
– Andy
Andy Schreiber: Richard, thanks for the response (even if somewhat tongue-in-cheek).
My reply to such would simply be as follows: If someone has a serious problem with the Westminster Standards, that person should do one of two things:
RS: Andy, as one who truly wrestles with these issues (what does it mean to be confessional and so on), allow me to bombard you with a few more questions.
1) Who gets to decide what a serious problem with Westminster is?
2) Does Westminster give you a way to decide what a serious problem is or not?
3) Take your example of justification. Does one have to hold each word and each point with the
same degree of strength?
4) Can one hold to the words of Westminster and differ from its theology, or perhaps hold to its
theology while at the same time being uncomfortable with the way it is expressed?
Richard, so it’s okay for you to have Edwards but I can’t have the Westminster Confession unless you approve by the lights of your interpretation of the Bible and of history. When are you going to see that in this whole process you are the arbiter of who’s in and who’s out? At least I believe in councils and assemblies. You are a pope and you don’t even know it.
D. G. Hart: Richard, so it’s okay for you to have Edwards but I can’t have the Westminster Confession unless you approve by the lights of your interpretation of the Bible and of history. When are you going to see that in this whole process you are the arbiter of who’s in and who’s out? At least I believe in councils and assemblies. You are a pope and you don’t even know it.
RS: It would be helpful if you limited your comments to what I say and what is an actual deduction or implication from what I said. I have never said that you cannot have your Westminster Confession. I am also not arguing about my personal interpretation versus that of your WCF. I am saying that the WCF itself says that people must be convinced by Scripture itself. I don’t think that anyone holds to the WCF these days in all ways and at all points, so at some point you will have to step outside the WCF to decide what is important. I think my position is that we need Creeds and Confessions, but so far it is hard to find one that many people can hold to without arguing about what it means. It seems as if people disagree about what the WCF means about as much as they do the Scriptures. So again, perhaps the real argument is over what it means to be Confessional in light of what the WCF teaches about how we are to believe something because it is in Scripture and taught of the Spirit.
Richard, I stand by my reading of you as pope. You have raised questions about confessionalism, suggesting it is merely a form of tradition. You raise questions about my interpretation of Christianity. You disagree with my own historical work on Edwards and revivalism. Your constant defense is that you are simply reading the Bible. You don’t allow that others also read the Bible and come to different conclusions. And instead of recognizing a diversity of interpretations, you insist that yours — I mean, the Bible’s — alone is correct because it is biblical. Okay, maybe this isn’t papal. Maybe it’s divine. Either way, it’s amazingly self-superior.
I wish you might consider your powers of interpretation. Might they be wrong? Or is to suggest that you are wrong to imply the Bible has errors?
Darryl, am I wrong in asserting that your theological position inevitably devolves to exegetical and hermeneutical arguments about the WCF? After all, people read Scripture and always come to different conclusons about what it says.
RS: Am I wrong in asserting that your theological position inevitably devolves to exegetical and hermeneutical arguments about Scripture? And that you are in danger of becoming a dispensationalist (like myself)?
D. G. Hart: Richard, I stand by my reading of you as pope. You have raised questions about confessionalism, suggesting it is merely a form of tradition. You raise questions about my interpretation of Christianity. You disagree with my own historical work on Edwards and revivalism. Your constant defense is that you are simply reading the Bible.
RS: Nada, remember that I also claim to read the Bible in light of what others in the past have written as well. I suggest that some forms of confessionalism can be merely a form of tradition and say that the WCF itself says we should be convinced of truth because of the Word of God and the Spirit in our hearts. The WCF itself, then, gives us the teaching that it should not be followed blindly. But yes, I strongly disgree with your interpretation of Edwards and revivalism. Edwards wrote in a letter to one of the Erskine brothers in Scotland that he believed the WCF. They wanted him to move to Scotland as a minister. I think you read Edwards (by appearances) through the lense of Piper rather than read Edwards as a whole. You say his writings on the Affections leaves you cold, which sure sounds like affections on your part. So I certainly disagree with you on that. But then again, it is not wrong to disagree with others as long as they are not the pope. Right?
D.G. Hart: You don’t allow that others also read the Bible and come to different conclusions.
RS: Of course others read the Bible and come to different conclusions. That is why there are Mormons and so on. The question is what does the Bible really teach and what is true.
D.G. Hart: And instead of recognizing a diversity of interpretations, you insist that yours — I mean, the Bible’s — alone is correct because it is biblical.
RS: Hmmm, just remember that I am not the one with the BLOG that is taking on the whole world. But I sure thought that it was okay to discuss what was biblical and what was not. Of course I recognize that we have a diversity of interpretations, but I hope that is not a denial that there is only one truth. We are to discuss these things because there is only one truth and God can lead us to that truth.
D.G. Hart: Okay, maybe this isn’t papal. Maybe it’s divine. Either way, it’s amazingly self-superior.
RS: Are you talking about yourself or me?
D.G. Hart: I wish you might consider your powers of interpretation. Might they be wrong? Or is to suggest that you are wrong to imply the Bible has errors?
RS: Of course I am wrong at points, but if I have studied something (in the Bible and what others in history have said about it) and have arrived at a studied conclusion, it takes more than mere conjecture and bad hermenetics to move me. Bad philosophy, short-sighted or self-centered interpretations of men of the past, and most of all self-centered interpretations of the Bible do not tend to convince others. On some things people can live with the differences and go on, but that does not mean that they should not discuss them. Am I a pope because I disagree with you on Edwards or with Mark on his views? That is a small section to be pope over.
But as to power of interpretation, I do believe that a person must read a lot of Edwards in order to understand what he means. One must read his work on the Trinity, on grace, on love, ethics (End for Which God Created the World), original sin, and so on before they are going to understand his treatise on affections and see how objective it is rather than subjective. So the part on powers of interpretation can go more ways than one.
Ted Bigelow: to RS: Am I wrong in asserting that your theological position inevitably devolves to exegetical and hermeneutical arguments about Scripture? And that you are in danger of becoming a dispensationalist (like myself)?
RS: I hope it does not devolve to that of dealing with Scripture, but rather evolves. I believe the WCF itself teaches us to make sure all things are grounded in Scripture. I do not perceive that I am in great danger of becoming a dispensationalist as I am a covenantal baptist with a different twist. So may main confession is the 1689 London Confession. But again, my view is that confessions are necessary but they must always be tightly lashed to the cross of Christ and the Scriptures or they become the traditions of men. The PCUSA, the Congregationalists, and Southern Seminary (its Abstracts) are all proof of what happens when a confession is not seen as grounded in Scripture.
Ted, you need to add that my view devolves to contested interpretations of the Confession of Faith in the courts of churches inhabited by men who have adopted the confession. This is not an academic question merely. It is a churchly one.
Richard, so again, you object to my traditionalism but fail to acknowledge your own. I stand with the confessions of the Reformed churches. You stand with Edwards. We both have our understanding of Scripture shaped by our reading of dead saints. But the difference is that you have trouble admitting that you lean on people for your understanding of the Bible. You have trouble doing this because your truth must always come from your own study of the Bible. And when that happens, there goes Edwards. But if Edwards is allowed into the room when you’re interpreting the Bible, why do you object when I let officers from the OPC into my room (as crowded as it may be).
Richard: Thanks for elucidating.
But since your faith is expressed in a confession rather than in an approach to Scripture shouldn’t you be convincing Darryl of the superiority of London 1689 vs. London 1648…
…instead of Edwards vs. Old Life?
DGH:
“Ted, you need to add that my view devolves to contested interpretations of the Confession of Faith in the courts of churches inhabited by men who have adopted the confession. This is not an academic question merely. It is a churchly one.”
Well said.
I would only add it is more than churchly. It is wanna-be Catholic (uppercase “C”).
Ted, that’s odd. I thought it was biblical, you know, like Acts 15 (as opposed to a fictitious Acts 29).
Ted, spoken like a good eeeevangelical descendant of the Radical Reformation. We didn’t reform nearly enough. But you do know that the Catholics reckon Protestant esteeming of the Bible as latent Anabaptism, right? But the Reformation was a battle on two fronts, which, among so many other things, was also a battle against two camps which claimed the Holy Spirit above the Word and descending like a dove on either the shoulder of the Church or into the heart of the Individual. And so Calvin reminds that:
We are assailed by two sects, which seem to differ most widely from each other. For what similitude is there in appearance between the Pope and the Anabaptists? And yet, that you may see that Satan never transforms himself so cunningly, as not in some measure to betray himself, the principal weapon with which they both assail us is the same. For when they boast extravagantly of the Spirit, the tendency certainly is to sink and bury the Word of God, that they may make room for their own falsehoods. And you, Sadolet, by stumbling on the very threshold, have paid the penalty of that affront which you offered to the Holy Spirit, when you separated him from the Word.
DGH:
“Ted, that’s odd. I thought it was biblical, you know, like Acts 15 (as opposed to a fictitious Acts 29).”
It was precisely Acts 15 I was referring to, or should I say, the exact same misinterpretation of it that the WCF and the RCC share. They are just a more consistent in their application of a misinterpretation than the Reformed are… hence the “wanna-be”-ism.
Shall we discuss on Old Life what Acts 15 teaches? That will require a discussion involving hermeneutics and Scripture, not hermeneutics and a Confession.
Zrim, dear man. You’re shadow boxing.
None of your blows land. Calvin didn’t have folks like me in mind when he referred to anabaptist.
I am/was unworthy to tie his sandals, and you honor me way too much by even applying his denunciation against me.
Calvin was first and foremost an exegete of Scripture, highly skilled in the original languages. Only after that was he a scholar of the Fathers. IOW, he put the knowledge of Scripture as more importnat than the knowledge of those who wrote about Scripture.
How well have you done in imitating Calvin? If you had invested even 1/4 of the time you invested in internet jousting to learning the languages, where might your knowledge of God and His glory be?
Dear Zrim, I am pretty sure Calvin did have anabaptists like me in mind. My goodness, I don’t even believe in the inherent immortality of the soul!
That being said, I understand your need for tidiness wants to lump all anabaptists together (and then lump them together with the Romanist extreme on the other side of your “correct”). But here’s where you need to make up your mind. Are you talking about the “anabaptists” who went by the “letter”, ie, those who imposed their “community standards”? Or are you talking about the individualists who rejected “biblicism” and who “put the Holy Spirit above the Word”?
We know they are the bad guys. And we know they are all basically the same, so that it’s not worth our while to notice any differences. But are they legalists or are they enthusiasts?
Ted Bigelow: Richard: Thanks for elucidating.
But since your faith is expressed in a confession rather than in an approach to Scripture shouldn’t you be convincing Darryl of the superiority of London 1689 vs. London 1648…
…instead of Edwards vs. Old Life?
RS: Until Dr. Hart reaches the point where it may be possible for him to recognize that there may be an error somewhere in the WCF and that the teaching of the Bible must be superior to the WCF, he will not move from it. My assertion is that the WCF itself teaches that one must study Scripture for understanding rather than just trust in the confession. Edwards is perhaps another issue, though perhaps not entirely. I might also add that the 1689 is not far from the WCF on most issuesm and in fact it was built on and almost copied in most places. But of course since infant baptism is not commanded nor do see one example of it in the NT, the Regulative Principle demands a change in that location.
Ted, you may have a point–how could a medieval Calvin have conceived of a modernity that gave rise to theological oddities like Calminianism or Reformed Baptists? Still, he did write catechisms and his cohorts and students wrote confessions (e.g. de Bres and the Belgic). I’m not so sure he’d take well to confessions and their adherents being portrayed as wanna-be papists.
Ted, don’t forget the pastoral epistles and the Old Testament when you start interpreting.
Mark, I’m talking to Ted whose low church sensibilities lead him to suggest high church Calvinists are latent Romanists. Fubar.
Richard, I have no problem admitting that Scripture is infallible and the Confession is not the place where we go to settle controversies or to understand God’s will (though the confession does summarize biblical teaching). What you won’t admit is that you are just as dependent on history and church fathers as I am — hence your oversized love for Edwards.
D. G. Hart: Richard, so again, you object to my traditionalism but fail to acknowledge your own.
RS: I don’t object to all of your traditionalism and I fully admit my own (of sorts). I
D.G. Hart: I stand with the confessions of the Reformed churches. You stand with Edwards.
RS: I don’t really see the WCF and Edwards as all that far apart, though he would be regarding the sacraments with the Three Forms.
D.G. Hart: We both have our understanding of Scripture shaped by our reading of dead saints. But the difference is that you have trouble admitting that you lean on people for your understanding of the Bible. You have trouble doing this because your truth must always come from your own study of the Bible.
RS: I am just following the WCF on that one, however. I freely admit that I lean on the old dead guys for understanding, but ultimately they must convince me that it is biblical. Again, if I am reading the WCF at all correctly that is what it teaches. So I think I am more in line with the WCF at that point than you are.
D.G. Hart: And when that happens, there goes Edwards. But if Edwards is allowed into the room when you’re interpreting the Bible, why do you object when I let officers from the OPC into my room (as crowded as it may be).
RS: Because they are stuffy, boring, and don’t have the understanding he did? I don’t object to letting those officers in your room at all. I am simply saying that the confession itself teaches that we are to have our understanding of the Bible from the Bible and we are to be convinced by the Spirit of God. Let me give you that section again (see below).
IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.[9]
RS: I am not to believe the Holy Scripture because of anything or anyone other than God. The authority of Scripture is supreme and it is to be received because it is the Word of God. In other words, it is not to be received by the testimony of one man, many (even if OPC elders), or even a whole confession.
V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture.[10] And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.[11]
RS: Our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit. My argument is that the confession itself teaches us that we are to be bound to Holy Scripture and only be convinced that something is true because it is the Word of God and we are to be convinced by the Spirit.
One Trackback
[...] D.G. Hart has written a fine, succinct piece on fellows who won’t be constrained by the “traditions of men.” We’re thinking particularly of Peter Leithart and the Westminster Standards which he supposedly holds “as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures.” You can read Hart’s post here. [...]