Tradition and Systematics

May 14, 2007 at 10:29 am (Federal Vision)

It seems plain that Wilson and I have a genuine difference of position on the law/gospel distinction. Wilson does not hold to it, and I do. He holds that if there is any distinction, it is in the person, and not in the text, whereas I hold that there is a distinction in the text. I am not sure what benefit there would be in arguing the point further, so let’s simply note it and move on.  With regard to the merit question, I think that if the divines had really wanted to avoid any confusion about how they were using the term so as to avoid any Medieval connotations, they would have used another term in LC 55, such as “state.” At the very least, if they did not wish to have any Medieval connotations, they picked the very worst word to use there. Therefore, I think it is no accident. The divines meant merit. That is the straightforward reading of LC 55. But, to move on.

Chapter 5 deals with the old/new question in theology. Wilson’s position is that, while we do not teach new things, we grow in the old things. The analogy of a tree is helpful here: the tree does not become something else, and the trunk remains te trunk, and the main branches remain the main branches. But the tree grows finer and finer branches.

One of the first claims is that “In the same way (as a student, LK) over centuries the Church grows into deeper and richer understanding of the faith” (p. 49). I agree with this, although I think I would have added this qualifying statement: “sometimes the church regresses in certain areas of knowledge.” I think that the church does not always progress forward. For instance, take the evangelical church’s position on open theism. By forgetting that open theism is Socinianism redivivus, the evangelical church has allowed itself to be snookered by open theism. They have forgotten their church history. I think that progress is really only possible if one remembers the past well, so as not to fall into old errors. And indeed, it is also quite possible that orthodox theology that we think is something new actually isn’t. Take the Post-Reformation tradition, for instance. The Reformed church is only beginning to recover the staggeringly enormous contribution to systematics that is available in the Post-Reformation Reformed tradition. How do we know that what we are saying is new and progressive? Is it not the keenest embarassment to a scholar to think out an idea only to find out that it has already been said, better, by someone before? I am not sure that Wilson would disagree with me here. But I certainly would not want to claim a purely forward-moving direction for the church, any more than I would want to claim a purely forward-moving direction in any person’s faith. A person can backslide, and the church can backslide. It takes great wisdom to know which is happening with a particular “new” idea. All this is not to deny that we can, in fact, learn more about the Scriptures. The Scriptures do not change, but we do change. And the Holy Spirit is at work in all ages of the church, raising up people who have insight into the Scripture. Surely, we would not wish to disenfranchise any period of church history, Medieval and modern theology included (I say this to TR’s!).

There are three positions on tradition which Wilson mentions: 1. authoritative tradition as equal to Scripture; 2. authoritative tradition as subordinate to Scripture, and 3. tradition as absolute (p. 50). The first is the Roman Catholic position, as ought to be obvious. The second is the Reformed tradition, which ought to be equally obvious. And the third is held by sectarians and an increasing number of people in the RCC (p. 50). I think what Wilson means by the third position is that tradition is not held accountable to Scripture, nor is related to Scripture in any way. He seems to hint at this on p. 51, where he says “The third position says that my (or our) interpretation of Scripture must by definition be correct.” I like his example of Alexander Campbell (p. 51). Wilson makes an excellent point when he says that “God created us in such a way that we do not have the luxury of a ‘no tradition’ option” (p. 51). And, you have to appreciate the Baptist pastor who said “We Baptists don’t believe in tradition. It is contrary to our historic position” (p. 51). This is parallel (though not equal) to saying that we all have presuppositions when coming to the text of Scripture. Wilson’s position is that we need to be aware and conscious of such presuppositions, and subordinate such presuppositions to the Word of God. If we find that our assumptions are out of accord with Scripture, then it is our assumptions that need to change.

Wilson goes on to mention that the real problem is nebulous tradition. By this he means tradition that is not examined, but assumed. It is tradition that is not subject to the Scripture, because it is not even conscious. It would be interesting to know who we has in mind, what his target is here. I think I may have a good guess when he says that John Calvin’s theology is viewed by some as coming from Trent (p. 52). I think he has in mind those who attribute too little to baptism, and are uncomfortable connecting the sign and the thing signified. This is a guess, but I would be surprised if it were far from the truth.

He states that ST has its place, but that it is not the only or the ultimate place (p. 53). I agree that there certainly are temptations that come along with ST. However, I do not believe that any of the theological disciplines has “priority” over the others. There are equal and opposite dangers in exegesis, for instance. I wrote a paper once in seminary, comparing a musical composition by Franz Liszt (his b minor Sonata, which I played for my senior recital) and theology as a whole. In playing that piece, nothing was easier than to chop it up (it is a 30-minute piece with no breaks at all) into its components, and play it with no relation from one section to the next. It is also easy in theology (and I think this danger is the worst in exegesis: it is certainly the most widely-spread danger in all of theology) to engage in exegesis with no reference to ST at all. I see this as the worst danger currently confronting the theological enterprise. All the disciplines are inter-related, and none have claim to priority over the others. That is, they all influence and shape one another. Church history tells us of exegetical mistakes of the past, for instance. Surely, we cannot forget our church history when doing exegesis. Neither can we forget our ST when doing exegesis, since we cannot come to a passage that says “God repents” and assume that it means that God changed His mind. ST puts boundaries around exegesis so that such misinterpretation does not take place. We are Reformed, which means that we are not biblicists.

I really cannot disagree more with Joel Garver’s quotation on p. 55. If Richard Muller has taught us anything, it is that the Post-Reformation tradition was not “increasingly preoccupied with a rationalistic decretal theology that proceeded almost entirely from the persective of God’s eternal purposes.” Muller destroys Brian Armstrong’s thesis that the decree was the central dogma point. Muller destroys the “Calvin versus the Calvinists school” as well. I am currently reading a’Brakel. Nothing could be farther from a rationalistic decretal theology. I am reading Wollebius and Rijssen right now. Same story as a’Brakel. I have read Turretin. No rationalistic decretal theology, his. No, scholastic theology was how they taught Reformed doctrine in schools. It involved careful delineation of truth from error. State a proposition of theology and defend it from errors. That is all that scholastic theology is. It is not a rationalistic decretal theology. Unfortunately, this statement of Joel’s could be read to disenfranchise the entire Post-Reformation dogmatic tradition. Certainly, the pejorative adjective “rationalistic” points in this direction (in addition to being untrue). Joel’s statement could be further read to state that those theologians are of no help today: “and was, for a time, helpful.” It seems that the plain intimation of this is that they are no longer helpful to us. I would strongly disagree with such a thesis. I have grown immeasurably in my study of these Post-Reformation dogmaticians. They are incredibly helpful and scholarly.

Update: Joel Garver has clarified his position with regard to the Post-Reformation tradition. His article is well worth careful study. I would like to apologize to Joel for not attempting to ascertain first whether he still held to that position before I wrote this post. I think I even remember reading some of Joel’s posts advocating the reading of such authors. Mea culpa.

18 Comments

  1. Craig Phelps said,

    May 14, 2007 at 1:07 pm

    Very thoughful post, Rev.

  2. blogustine said,

    May 14, 2007 at 3:16 pm

    Lane,
    I think you are too light on Wilson here with his view of Historical and Theological Progress. It is all geared to the point with which you disagreed about things being “helpful for a time”. The figures of the tree and the student growing from second grade to twelfth grade are not new to him, they are figures of Philip Schaff and his Historical Development, which is what he argues for. You made the point that you have learned a lot from those Post Reformation Dogmatic authors. Applying Wilson’s figure of a student tells us that you are wrong to do so. A child learns addition in second grade and builds from it for the rest of his life. However, in twelfth grade he ought to be doing Trigonometry and Calculus. If you are still reading the second grade text book, and learning from it, then you are behind and should fail twelfth grade. Wilson’s analogy says that you, Lane, by learning from a 4th grade book (Post Reformation works), you are missing the boat of this the twelfth grade (21st century). The 4th grade book was very helpful to the church in the 4th grade, but we have new concerns now, and we must use the new books.

    So I think Wilson is in line with Garver and they are both in line with Schaff. Wilson’s whole book is about recovering the objectivity of the covenant. In other words he wants to meld the Protestant individualism (which he has attacked in the previous chapters) with some of the objective theology of Rome. By the way that is a stated goal of Schaff’s view of historical development.

    While I agree with you that Wilson underplays regression, I would dispute Wilson and your agreement with him that the church grows into a deeper understanding of faith through the centuries. Historically arrogant statements such as this need some backing up. What in the Apostle’s Creed does the church disagree with today? What about Nicaea, which is not exactly a weak, superficial discussion on the Trinity and Christ. What about Chalcedon? Have we significantly contributed to and grown in understanding of Christology past Chalcedon? Does not the Westminster really just restate the same doctrine as those early creeds? Sure the Reformation made creeds that were much more comprehensive than those early creeds, but that does not mean the early church did not understand election or creation or faith. Someone is going to need to prove to me that Augustine, Clement, and Alcuin are the same as 2 + 2 = 4 while R.C. Sproul and Ligon Duncan are discovering the tangent and cosign of circles.

  3. blogustine said,

    May 14, 2007 at 3:16 pm

    Sorry Lane, I was logged in under a different name. That post is me, Lee Johnson! I can’t figure out how to switch back to my old username!

  4. greenbaggins said,

    May 14, 2007 at 3:23 pm

    I think you misunderstand me, Lee. As I argued in the post, it is quite possible to *regress* theologically. This is why I cannot be accused of chronological snobbery. I think that the Holy Spirit is given to every age of the church, and that we have something to learn, consequently, from every age of the church. In other words, to use the tree analogy, we do not learn the trunk and the main branches over again, nor do our fine points hop to another tree, but are simply the finer split of branches further on. I don’t think that anything new we learn that is correct will ever disagree in any fundamental way with what the church has learned in the past. I would argue that it is the early church fathers and the Reformation who have learned the trig and the calculus. The problem I see with the FV is that they are trying to graft a tree split onto another tree.

  5. blogustine said,

    May 14, 2007 at 4:46 pm

    I am glad to hear you say it. I do not think that is what Wilson is saying at all. It is clearly not what Leithart says, nor what Sandlin says. I believe they are saying that the Early Fathers did not know Trig, the Reformers knew only Algebra, and that now we can do Trig. A tree that stays an acorn or stays only five feet tall is a defective tree. Instead it must hit new heights, grow taller and taller. Wilson is arguing that it is time for us to hit a new stage in development, to go up a grade, and recover the objectivity of the covenant.

    If you disagree that Wilson is saying such things browse through his footnotes. See how many Reformation and older authors he quotes. See how many modern day scholars he quotes.

  6. greenbaggins said,

    May 14, 2007 at 4:49 pm

    Again, I think you misunderstand me! ;-) Comment 4 was *my* view. I am not necessarily saying that it is Wilson’s.

  7. David McCrory said,

    May 14, 2007 at 5:15 pm

    “Wilson is arguing that it is time for us to hit a new stage in development, to go up a grade, and recover the objectivity of the covenant.”

    If we are “recovering” something, it would seem pretty hard to suggest we’re progressing forward in the very same breath.

  8. Xon said,

    May 14, 2007 at 5:32 pm

    Not unless the thing you’re recovering was forgotten for a time, which is part of the point of calling it a “recovery.”

    Calvin said x. Reformed Christians have generally not gone along with x for the last 300 years. But I think x is actually thoroughly consistent with Reformed theology, and in fact solves some problems that the more popular version of the last 300 years doesn’t. So, it is both progress and a recovery for us to start taking Calvin’s teaching of x seriously again.

  9. Tim Wilder said,

    May 14, 2007 at 6:28 pm

    “What in the Apostle’s Creed does the church disagree with today? What about Nicaea, which is not exactly a weak, superficial discussion on the Trinity and Christ.”

    This is to the point. With Leithart, Xon assures us, we have gotten beyond that ontology of being and have now arrived at the relational oncology. So Chalcedon with its homoousion is old hat.

  10. Tim Wilder said,

    May 14, 2007 at 6:39 pm

    Correction on 9:

    That should be the Nicene Creed, not Chalcedon, which established the ontology of being, or substance, as the expression of fundamental doctrine.

  11. Erdman said,

    May 14, 2007 at 7:01 pm

    A bit of fodder for thought here…

    Quote:
    For instance, take the evangelical church’s position on open theism. By forgetting that open theism is Socinianism redivivus, the evangelical church has allowed itself to be snookered by open theism. They have forgotten their church history. I think that progress is really only possible if one remembers the past well, so as not to fall into old errors. And indeed, it is also quite possible that orthodox theology that we think is something new actually isn’t.

    This strikes me as a rather muddled understanding of the knowledge-gaining process. It is precisely by opening up the past that we can move forward into meaningful theology for the present. Questioning the doctrines we take for granted (i.e., the openness of God) is one of the vehicles through which we appropriate past doctrines into the present. A true openness, of course, necessitates putting current biases on the dock and truly and thoroughly examining doctrines.

    The error of Evangelicalism is that they have effectively shut down the debate. What more did you want them to do!?! They nearly expelled the leading Open Theism advocates and John Sanders eventually left of his own volition.

    Interestingly enough your own post provides a possible defeater to your above suggestion:
    The Scriptures do not change, but we do change. And the Holy Spirit is at work in all ages of the church, raising up people who have insight into the Scripture.

    If people change then is it not necessary for each generation to examine and re-examine the Scriptures in the new context?

  12. Andy Dollahite said,

    May 14, 2007 at 7:47 pm

    Lee,

    I’d like to see specific evidence of Wilson and other FV men saying something to the effect that “the Early Fathers did not know Trig, the Reformers knew only Algebra, and that now we can do Trig.”

    On the contrary, consider these statements from the introduction to THE FEDERAL VISION.

    “There was nothing novel or particularly creative about the lectures [2002 AAPC] given (most if not all of the points made by the speakers had been made by numerous theologians at one time or another in the past)…” (p. 12).

    “It should be noted that man of the things written in the following articles have been written by others long before us. These things have been taught in every age of the Church. You find statements, allusions, and clear teaching of these matters in the early fathers…in the Medieval fathers and the Reformers…The views expressed herein are also reflected in many of the creeds and confessions of the Church…” (p. 12).

    “Nor do we have any delusions of our own importance. We haven’t the slightest notion that our views will ’straighten out everything that’s wrong with the Church’” (p. 13).

    Here is Wilson in the foreward to REFORMED IS NOT ENOUGH: “We believe ourselves to be in the process of recovering what our fathers taught from the Reformation down to the Enlightenment - that is a Reformed and medieval mindset” (p. 9).

    When I read those statements I can’t even imagine those men articulating any such view that would imply they believe they are taking the Church to some NEW or NOVEL position.

  13. sjgarver said,

    May 15, 2007 at 8:53 am

    Hi, Lane. I’ve not followed your blog, but another reader pointed me to this post. For what it’s worth, there are all sorts of reasons that around five years ago, I thought better of the set of articles Wilson quotes and removed them.

    One of those reasons was I said things (like what Wilson quoted) that I simply didn’t agree with any longer and had no time to make adequate revisions.

    Your criticisms are spot-on. And, as most folks likely realize, I continue to study and have an increasing fondness for scholasticism, Reformed and otherwise. I also camp out much more on the “dogmatics” end of the spectrum, even if I believe - as you do - that there should be a balance and reciprocity among the theological disciplines.

    Having said that, I do have some questions about the approach of the Muller school in terms of reception-history and related matters, which one can consider, if so inclined. But they are minor and concern more what the school doesn’t always do than what it actually does.

    grace & peace,

    joel

  14. Bret L. McAtee said,

    May 15, 2007 at 9:14 am

    For those of you unfamiliar with Thomas Kuhn’s book, ‘The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,’ I think it would be profitable for you to read it in the context of this ongoing debate between Federal Visionists and Westminsterian Traditionalists.

    Much of what I see the Federal Visionists doing closely follows Kuhn’s observations on how Worldview change happens.

    One thing that Kuhn points out is that Worldview change (Kuhn’s ‘Scientific Revolutions’ ;) does not progress like a tree’s slow growth but rather such change is sudden an dramatic and only after the change has transpired do the gatekeepers of the new paradigm then write history to make it appear that the change was just the natural extension of a previous slow growing tree. This allows them to claim the reputation of all that went before that they overthrew, while at the same time calms the roiled waters.

    Sometimes it looks like at least some of the FV types are being very self conscious in trying to effect (in Kuhn’s words) a ‘Scientific Revolution’ in the Westminster structure.

    There is much more that Kuhn’s book brings out that could be easily applied to what has happened in the past few years.

  15. greenbaggins said,

    May 15, 2007 at 9:41 am

    Joel, thanks much for this clarification of your position regarding the Muller school. I will certainly take a look at your thoughts about it. And thanks for your clarification of my criticism. It is much appreciated. Blessings, Lane

  16. greenbaggins said,

    May 15, 2007 at 9:53 am

    Bret, welcome to my blog. I appreciate your thoughts very much. I think that that is indeed what is happening. Among some it is worse than it is among others, however.

  17. Lee said,

    May 15, 2007 at 10:35 am

    Andy #12,
    The idea that the church fathers did not know Trig is the logical consequence of his Student-Textbook picture. As for evidence of these men saying things of that sort take a look at comments #9-10 that state Leithart and others want to go beyond The Apostle’s Creed and the Nicene Creed into relational ontology. That is a wonderful example of moving beyond addition into Trig according to them at any rate.

    David #7,
    I don’t think his title goes against the idea of a new stage of development at all. Remember the main title is “Reformed” is Not Enough, which implies the need to move further on. The Recovery of Objectivity is a recovery of doctrines currently only in the Roman Catholic church, mainly sacramentalism. Thus, a doctrine is “recovered” and then unitied to Protestant doctrines (in theory at least), to make a new stage of development. Remember Hegel’s theory requires a little from the Thesis, a little from the Antithesis, and you get a new state, a Synthesis. Wilson, following Schaff, is trying this theory out.

  18. Individualism « Green Baggins said,

    May 30, 2007 at 1:30 pm

    [...] 30th, 2007 at 1:28 pm (Federal Vision) I am not sure whether Doug will respond to my review of chapter 5 of RINE, so I am going to move ahead. Doug has been rather extraordinarily busy with the whole MARS [...]

Post a Comment