The post on 1 Sam 13.1 brought with it some great comments. Joel brought up a great point about the history of interpretation, which caused me not only to think about the topic at hand, but also some broader topics that I have been thinking about recently.
One of them was actually defining myself in terms of my “questioning” things such as inerrancy or the Westminster Confession of Faith. I understand that many people hold these things close (which I do as well), so whenever they read or hear someone “questioning” these things, the posture is automatically defensive. They see it as a threat to something that they believe and, many times, shut themselves off to any fruit that can come from “questioning” deeply held beliefs.
To be honest, I don’t blame these people for being defensive. If someone was challenging something that I believe, I would, more likely than not, react in the same manner. Also, many people have become bonafide “liberals” after questioning such doctrines or Confessions. The threat is real, so I am empathetic towards those who react in this manner.
In order to hopefully get beyond the impasse that this defensive posture can create, let me clarify my “questioning” of such things as inerrancy and the Westminster Confession of Faith.
First, I am not arguing for errancy. I believe completely that the Word of God is inerrant for the purpose that God has revealed it.
Second, I am not arguing against inerrancy, but against some modern formulations of that doctrine. In other words, I don’t have a problem with inerrancy, but I do have a problem with what some people/groups/theologians/etc. say about inerrancy in that I do not believe their formulations are nuanced or robust enough to actually deal with the text in light of many issues (textual criticism, archaeology, science, cognate literature, etc.). What I don’t want is to throw out inerrancy; what I do want is a robust view of inerrancy that can deal with these issues.
Third, in terms of the Westminster Confession of Faith, I do not want to throw it out and start all over. I do not want to divorce myself from a history that I know and love. Rather, I would like to see some minor revisions that will make it continually effective as a Confession. For instance, in 1.8 of the Confession it reads: “The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old)…” Why can we not insert “Aramaic” into the Confession to make it more robust? What would be lost in changing it to read: “The Old Testament in Hebrew and Aramaic (which were the native languages of the people of God of old)…?” There are other, similar changes which, I think, would be beneficial for those who already hold to the Confession. It is not a wholesale changing of the Confession, but a revision to make it even better.
Fourth (and this will tie them all together), I do not want to argue against these doctrines or traditions; I am actually trying to argue for them, albeit in a revised and more robust form. If I didn’t want to hold onto these doctrines or Confessions, then I wouldn’t even bother bringing them up in conversation. I would simply move on to whatever I thought got the job done. I want a robust doctrine of inerrancy and I want the Confession to be as nuanced and as robust as it can be so that it can continue to be a Confession that deals with the problems that confront the faith of the people of God.
Some may disagree and think that the current formation of the doctrine of inerrancy and the current form of the Westminster Confession of Faith are completely fine and beyond questioning or revising.
I’m just not sure I’m with them, and I pray that we can move beyond defensive postures and alarmist statements and formulate rich doctrines and Confessions that can continue to serve the Church in light of modern criticism.
5 May 2008 at 11.32 pm
I am not trying to be a “PCA hater,” there are a lot of good people there. But the thing that has always bothered me about the Confession is really two-fold… 1. despite words to the contrary, nearly every reformed theology student I have met talks about the confession with the same awe and reverence as Scripture. They will say the Bible is the ultimate authority, but then treat the confession the way my Catholic relatives treat the Pope.
2. The Confession was formed by one particular race and culture at a specific place in time. I.E. it was answering deep theological questions of its day. Yet, it says nothing about plural marriages, like you may see in Africa, or ancestor worship you may see in Asia. Both of those two issues are huge to the theology being developed in both of those places. therefore, if the confession were developed in their context, it’d say something about it.
All that to say, I am not a theologian, but as an outsider, it’s frightening to see how willingly and viciously people will divide over the confession, and supposed “threats” to it. I just have to wonder.. if all of this energy towards defending the Confession were put towards asking how it can used to plant more churches or bring more people to Jesus, what would happen?
Theology and defense of belief have their place, but what is scary is when that is only thing a particular group of people see their role as being.
6 May 2008 at 7.18 am
Amybaker, you may not be a theologian but I wonder if you are able to answer a question raised by your comment. If the Confession was time bound to a particular place and people, what do you think that means for the Bible? Doesn’t the Bible also suffer from such characteristics — hardly addressing problems of globalization, feminism, or peak oil. So how does any document from the past speak to the concerns of now? Aren’t they all relative?
6 May 2008 at 8.21 am
no, the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, inspired by Him. The Confession is not.
6 May 2008 at 8.28 am
I also did not say that the Confession does not apply to now, although I can see how that could have been miscommunicated. The point is that I question treating it so tightly as a bright line, as to who is in and who is out, when it is not inspired by God, (although it is not incorrect in what it says, I would affirm it as a whole). My issue, is that it, unlike the Bible, it is bound far more by the culture in which it was written b/c it isn’t inerrant, nor inspired by God, and therefore, does not have the same transcendent power from culture to culture.
To build an entire movement around a document, without allowing room for additional truths from the Word of God seems a bit arrogant. I do not mean to say that rudely, but whose to say that it’s the Bible, plus the Confession? I know you would likely not say that, but in practice, that is how many operate.
6 May 2008 at 1.28 pm
Dr. Hart: I would agree with Amy in this aspect. There is a qualitative difference between Scripture, which is divinely authored through humans, and a Confession, which is only authored by humans.
Because Scripture has its origins in God, who is transcultural and transcontextual, it has the ability to speak to variegated cultures and contexts because its author is the Creator and sustainer of those cultures and contexts.
Humans are inherently timebound, as is their work. They cannot do what God himself can.
6 May 2008 at 2.04 pm
But is there not a middle way between divinely inspired in the canonical sense and mere human words? Does the Holy Spirit not communicate with us outside the Bible?
What about the Nicene Creed? What about a sermon where the preacher carefully communicates the meaning of the text? Our charismatic friends might want to add some other speaking gifts as well.
I don’t think I’m wrong when I say the Reformers believed that in some sense God spoke through councils of the church, the preaching of the word and perhaps other means.
The prophets of old and the apostles of Christ certainly carried an authority that no pastoral office holds today (at least among Protestants). The Bible they wrote, therefore, is sui generis in its infallibility and supreme authority. But is this difference between the Bible and other ways God speaks to us one of substance or degree?
Of course, it’s also interesting to note that the WCF relegates the apocryphal books to the mere human words category when they are part of the LXX and were read with reverence for centuries. What are we supposed to take from that?
6 May 2008 at 2.12 pm
The problem seems to be what you pointed out in your earlier post, that people are unwilling to ‘reinterpret’ or ‘recontextualize’ their confessions. All confessions and traditions are tied to their context in that they are usually reacting to another movement or confession or whatever.
It seems to me that we should all hold and cherish our traditions and confessions but with the humility that our traditions and confessions can learn something from other traditions and confessions. NT Wright always says that around 25% of what he teaches is faulty, the problem is he doesn’t know which 25%. Maybe the percentage is lower in something so carefully crafted as the WCF but let’s not be so arrogant as to believe that our traditions are not in need of updating or reinterpreting. That’s what I think.
6 May 2008 at 2.16 pm
Manlius: It is interesting that you bring up the question: “is there not a middle way between divinely inspired in the canonical sense and mere human words” because the early Church fathers thought that there was. They referred not only to the Scriptural writings as inspired, but also to the writings in the Apocrypha, the Pseudepigrapha, of Plato, of councils, of Clement, Polycarp, Gregory the Great, and others (found in the Appendix of A High View of Scripture? by Craig D. Allert).
Chapter 6 of this book is also very helpful in understanding how the early Church viewed different “levels” of inspiration. I wish Allert would have teased that out a bit more, especially in connection with today, but that wasn’t the purpose of the book.
6 May 2008 at 2.17 pm
ben: “It seems to me that we should all hold and cherish our traditions and confessions but with the humility that our traditions and confessions can learn something from other traditions and confessions.”
I agree. And that will get some people nervous, especially those who still hold onto foundational, modernistic epistemologies.
6 May 2008 at 2.44 pm
Thanks, Art, for bringing the Fathers into the discussion. I certainly have been helped by them on this issue. And thanks for “Allert-ing” me (I know, bad pun, but irresistible) to that book. I’m going to check it out.
Levels of canonicity can be upsetting to some, especially when they’re applied within the Bible itself (Luther, anyone?). But we all do this in practice, at least, so we might as well develop a better working theory about it. Except that we don’t need to develop a theory, since it’s a lot easier to accept the one already developed for us by our forebears.
And in the end, we need not be too frightened by levels of inspiration. In fact, the idea can comfort us. On the one hand, it’s good to know that God continues to speak to us, his holy Church. On the other hand, it’s good to know that he has already spoken in his Word, so that we have a “firm foundation” (I mean that in the poetic sense of the hymn, not as a modernistic theory of knowledge) for our faith AND a supreme authoritative voice by which we can allow for further reformation.
6 May 2008 at 7.34 pm
with regards to “levels of inspiration,” how is this different than a trajectory hermeneutic? It seems oddly similar
6 May 2008 at 7.41 pm
It does seem similar and it’s one more reason I wish Allert had teased out the implications for what the fathers meant by their different uses of the term inspiration. The most he says is that the fathers had a “broader view of inspiration” than the modern church does.
6 May 2008 at 11.07 pm
Amybaker: you wrote, “no, the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, inspired by Him. The Confession is not.” If I&I had stated it that way, there would be no WTS documents to discuss.
6 May 2008 at 11.38 pm
Dr. Hart,
I have been following your comments on this blog regarding the Enns issue, and it begs the question,
“have you in any way been encouraged or directed by anyone in authority at WTS to comment on and monitor this blog?”
7 May 2008 at 6.14 am
Anonymous: say what? How does responding to posts on a public space constitute begging a question in quotation marks that has never been put to me? Doesn’t your anonymity sort of beg a more basic question? What’s up with that?
But if you really must know, I am as close to “those in authority” at WTS as I am to Tim Keller. (In case you did not notice, I haven’t taught at the seminary for three years and it is not because of a lack of interest on my part.) My following the discussions on this site and others could simply arise from my care for the school from which I was graduated and that Machen founded. Or it could be that my seances with Machen, Murray and Van Til are working.
7 May 2008 at 12.53 pm
Amy B: “if all of this energy towards defending the Confession were put towards asking how it can used to plant more churches or bring more people to Jesus, what would happen?”
This is an excellent point!
Darryl: Attacking a professor I do not know is one thing…but going after Dr. Keller now you have gone too far!
7 May 2008 at 12.59 pm
Further Side note: It is likely that Darryl believes that I should not be able to post here as I am not PCA and therefor must be broadly evangelical…and as such not worthy of associating with.
7 May 2008 at 1.02 pm
John Frame has written a helpful article where he speaks of the value and espically the danger of using the confessions. Speaking from more of a baptistic tradition I must say, we percieve many (not all) Reformed scholors as giving the confessions, at least funtionally, the same priority (I.e. first order lang.) as Scripture.
I remember one of my seminary profs telling me a story of a man having a conversation with Edmund Clowney. He asked him why he believes in infant baptism in light of his view of his nature of the New Covenant. His answer, “because of the confessions”. Really? Tremper Longman has commented on simliar conversations he had while teaching at WTS.
Frame offers some good words. He also urges for the Reformed church to write a new confession, to address modern issues in biblical scholorship and culture.
http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/MyUse.htm
7 May 2008 at 1.07 pm
brandon, thanks for the link, I will check that out, I have been looking for resources in this area.
7 May 2008 at 1.11 pm
Brandon, you have well articulated the Baptistic view. At times it seems the confession seems to take precedence over the Bible and Protecting the Denomination over spreading the Gospel…
7 May 2008 at 2.13 pm
I’ll keep making the point until is seems to register. To pit the Bible against the confession is a false dichotomy. The appeal to the Bible is always an appeal to the Bible as interpreted by the one appealing to it. Shedd made the point quite effectively:
“Of course Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith. But this particular way of appealing to Scripture is specious and fallacious. In the first place, it assumes that Calvinism is not Scriptural, an assumption which the Presbyterian Church has never granted. . . . Secondly, this kind of appeal to Scripture is only an appeal to Scripture as the reviser understands it. ‘Scripture’ properly means the interpretation of Scripture; that is, the contents of Scripture as reached by human investigation and exegesis. Creeds, like commentaries, are Scripture studied and explained, and not the mere abstract and unexplained book as it lies on the counter of the Bible House. The infallible Word of God is expounded by the fallible mind of man, and hence the variety of expositions embodied in the denominational creeds. But every interpreter claims to have understood the Scriptures correctly, and, consequently, claims that his creed is Scriptural, and if so, that it is the infallible truth of God. The Arminian appeals to the Articles of Wesley as the rule of faith, because he believes them to be the true explanation of the inspired Bible. . . .
“The Calvinist appeals to the creeds of Heidelberg, Dort, and Westminster as the rule of faith, because he regards them as the accurate exegesis of the revealed Word of God. By the ‘Bible’ these parties, as well as all others who appeal to the Bible, mean their understanding of the Bible. There is no such thing as that abstract Scripture to which the revisionist of whom we are speaking appeals; that is, Scripture apart from any and all interpretation of it. When, therefore, the advocate of revision demands that the Westminster Confession be ‘conformed to Scripture,’ he means conformation to Scripture as he and those like him read and explain it. It is impossible to make abstract Scripture the rule of faith for either an individual or a denomination. No Christian body has ever subscribed to the Bible merely as a printed book. A person who should write his name on the blank leaf of the Bible and say that his doctrinal belief was between the covers, would convey no definite information as to his creed. ”
At least those appealing to the confession are up front about what they think the Bible means. With the biblicist it is not always so clear.
7 May 2008 at 5.43 pm
Dr. Hart:
Pointed granted. However, I don’t think anyone here is attempting to abolish the use of confessions or creeds. Of course the church needs guard rails of this sort. However, the question becomes when (if ever) can we revise and re-write confessions in order to better interpret Scripture?
If our interpretations of Scripture (I.e. the confessions) are not inerrant than it seems occasional revision is necessary to be faithful to the inerrant text. Are we not “reformed and always reforming”?
And didn’t Shedd abandon inerrancy late in life? (I could be wrong, but think I remember reading that somewhere)
7 May 2008 at 5.44 pm
I sometimes appeal to the Baptist Confession of 1689…does that count?
7 May 2008 at 6.09 pm
Its not wrong to appeal to confessions, in fact I think we need them. My frustration is when the confessions posses an a priori interpretive trump card to any and every dissenting interpretation. That was my problem with Dr. Clowney, it appears his view of the covenants lead to a credo-Baptist position, but the confessions automatically put the option of the secondary doctrine out of bounds. I’ve seen this played out all over the place today. One of my profs was having a (friendly) theological disagreement with several scholars from the ACE, and every one of his points was being countered the Confessions (but not Scripture?). But what if sections of the confessions are wrong? (Like when the original WCF attributed Pauline authorship to Hebrews)
Personally, I’m glad Luther went with his conscience and plain reason (of course influenced by a host of earlier “heretics”) over the Catholic Church’s “confessions” in his interpretation of Scripture. I’m not suggesting we must overhaul everything like Luther did. But I do think “minor” alteration is needed.
7 May 2008 at 9.36 pm
Brandon: could it be that you have it backwards? Instead of the confessions needing guard rails supplied by folks like you and me, couldn’t it be that the confession is a guard rail for your and my interpretation of Scripture? Why would I be so confident that I’m reading the Bible better than a church council or the communions that have made the creed their confession of faith? In this pomo age, I thought interpretive communities were suh-weet? Are we really back to the rational, autonomous self against the palsied hand of the past?
7 May 2008 at 10.38 pm
Dr. Hart, for clarification I wrote,
I don’t think anyone here is attempting to abolish the use of confessions or creeds. Of course the church needs guard rails of this sort.
I was not arguing that the confessions need guard rails, but that the confessions are the guard rails. On that we agree. However, I repeat these guard rails (or interpretations of Scripture) are not inerrant. The rails thus need “inspection” from time to time in light of Scripture. Personally, It was hardly “rational autonomous” reason that led godly men to the conclusion that the pope is not the antichrist in Revelation. In theory and “practice” there is not a one to one correlation between Scripture and a confession. Even if its easier to be tempted with the latter.
Perhaps relevant here is your debate with John Frame where some of these same issues emerge:
http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/1998HartDebate.htm
7 May 2008 at 11.29 pm
I find it interesting when the very intelligent pretend to not know what others are saying so that they can continue their false argument with themselves. This is what Dr. Hart is doing.
Don’t worry Brandon, you were clear. You at no point suggested you were against confessions. Nor did you suggest that you were against guard rails. You especially did not give the impression that you were pomo, the straw man that Dr. Hart threw in at the end.
D
8 May 2008 at 10.38 pm
Poop: perhaps I wasn’t clear even if I am intelligent. I was speaking for pomo, not accusing Brandon of it. I was also trying to suggest that the folks who seem to hang out here and at Conn-versation are always quick to point out the fallibility of the confession. It seems that the benefit of the doubt is given to your intepretation of the Bible rather than to the confession’s. Couldn’t it be the case, especially if Enns is right about all theology being a product of its culture, that what you think the Bible is teaching is really just suburban Philadelphia talking. In which case, the confession could be quite handy in keeping us suburbanites in check.
Brandon: you’re right about the relevance of my debate with Frame on this. I believe he is still convinced that he is biblical in contrast to someone like me who cites the confession, which would suggest that the Westminster Standards are less biblical than John Frame.
9 May 2008 at 12.22 am
Dr. Hart: Thanks for not dubbing me a pomo. Would it be fair to say that you autonomous and rational human reason, based upon your reading of the Scripture, is judging the Confession to be more faithful to the text than Frame?
Regarding your Enns point (which you curiously use), if his logic has some truth it seems helpful to crosscheck your “communities” (I.e. the WCF) interpretations against other communities with the openness of possibly adjusting some of your viewpoints. Your comment must cut both ways to be consistent.
9 May 2008 at 12.34 am
p.s. Perhaps I am stepping over the line, but I am having trouble differentiating your logic from that of the Roman Catholic Church. Both the you and the Catholics argue for some sort of Magisterium that (at least functionally speaking) posses the keys to the kingdom of interpretation.
9 May 2008 at 8.09 am
Brandon, why is it if someone argues for a tradition he gets branded a Roman Catholic — as if every RC is in lockstep with Benedict (can you say Jesuits? Sure you can.). All sorts of intellectual traditions exist that maintain boundaries and exclude those who don’t follow the tradition. West Coast Straussian political philosophers do not hire paleo-conservatives. Boundary maintenance is what intellectual traditions do.
Of course, some intellectual traditions are more self-critical than others. McIntyre actually gives a good account of how the Thomist tradition that shaped Roman Catholicism is more open to adaptation and reform than a stereotype of Rome would allow.
So I would argue that the Reformed tradition has been far more flexible than its current critics allow. And the reason why the defenders of the tradition are critical of the critics is not because reform is impossible or because the confession is inviolable (I happen to be a big fan of the late 18th century American revisions of the WCF, but I’m not sure the current WTS admin. would be). The reason is that the critics don’t show much loyalty to the tradition. In fact, to regard a defense of the Reformed faith as tantamount to Roman Catholicism could show a very poor understanding of the tradition, especially regarding the place of creeds, church authority, office and Scripture in it.
Of course, there is another possibility — that is that the Reformed tradition is essentially one of the individual always searching for truth irrespective of tradition — the anti-tradition tradition. How such a tradition avoids the United Church of Christ I do not know.
9 May 2008 at 11.22 am
Anonymous, did you go AWOL?
9 May 2008 at 11.51 am
yes, for a time. I find it interesting that you did not directly answer the question. I have not been at the Seminary in awhile, so was unaware that you were no longer there. I was assuming you were still there, so that is poor research on my part.
“But if you really must know, I am as close to “those in authority” at WTS as I am to Tim Keller. (In case you did not notice, I haven’t taught at the seminary for three years and it is not because of a lack of interest on my part.) My following the discussions on this site and others could simply arise from my care for the school from which I was graduated and that Machen founded. Or it could be that my seances with Machen, Murray and Van Til are working.”
Your response does not flat out say no, and considering, as you point out, that you’d like to work there, but are no longer, it makes me wonder if your adamant defense of Westminster is to gain employment. Maybe that is “conspiracy theory,” but the way the process unfolded with Pete, leads to such suspicion.
The reason for my anonymity is due to what often seems to be fairly harsh attacks on those who differ with the official opinion of the school in suspending Pete. (Not necessarily by yourself)
9 May 2008 at 12.02 pm
Perhaps there could be a third possibility as well, informed students of the Reformation, interacting with current Biblical Scholarship in communities of faith, never losing sight of the wisdom of the Confession or the traditions of the Reformed faith, but seeking to enrich it, update it and sometimes correct it with new insights found by careful study of Biblical Texts which is enriched by additional subordinate study of ANE texts, sociology and culture. Conservative gatekeepers and progressive scholars, and practical theologians all controlled by the same Spirit, commited to the same creed, working together to serve Christ and his Church. (Sounds a lot like the WTS, I used to know and love.)
Again what if we were to begin to value each other for the very differences that we now label–Roman Catholic, fundamentalist, liberal, and now “United Church of Christ” (Come on Darryl, even you know that that is not even close!) What if we talked to each other instead of about each other? What if we allowed as much diversity as the authors of the WCF did?
9 May 2008 at 4.01 pm
Anonyomous, Dr. Hart is not trying to “gain employment” at WTS by twisting what he really thinks on this blog. That’s ridiculous, read the link to the Frame debate I posted above and you find he was arguing the same thing a decade ago (before the Enns incident).
Dr. Hart, I doubt you attempting to genuinely understand me because you’ve misconstrued what I’ve said a couple of times already. I am not “branding” you a RC. I was simply suggesting there is a similar thread of logic between your points on the Confessions complete authority over any contrary interpretation of Scripture (for the Reformed camp at least), and the RCC’s appeal to a Magisterium, bears a resemblance. So when the pope speaks ex cathedra, “full assent of faith” is required. And the church counsels (cf. WCF) often carry divine weight in matters of interpretation. Of course there are expectations. Yes, I can “say Jesuits”. But again I’m not branding you a RC.
9 May 2008 at 4.45 pm
Actually Brandon, it makes perfect sense. Anonymous never said that DGH was “twisting what he really thinks,” but, quite the opposite, continuing to push his ultra-conservative, TR agenda on visible blogs to gain favor with those in authority at Westminster Seminary.
The logic is as follows:
DGH was the librarian at Westminster Seminary and picks fights with those, he believes, are outside of the Reformed tradition as Machen envisioned it, such as John Frame. He desired then, as he does now, to have a teaching position at Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia.
A position then opens in the Church History department and DGH applies for the position. However, at that time Westminster Philadelphia was not on board with DGH’s ultra-conservative, TR agenda.
DGH then takes a position at Westminster California, but remains living in Philadelphia, perhaps in hopes that his luck will change.
In comes Peter Lillback, who, quite unlike Sam Logan, seems to be pushing an ultra-conservative, TR agenda. Upon the suspension of Peter Enns, DGH begins to post on visible blogs, showing his approval for Westminster’s move and putting himself in line with the current TR push at Westminster Philadelphia.
Perhaps there is more than meets the eye with DGH’s comments. It might be likely that he continues to comment in order to, hopefully, gain a position of favor in the eyes of Westminster Philadelphia and their current TR push. Perhaps he can gain the Church History position that he was once passed over for.
9 May 2008 at 5.08 pm
The following is my own opinion, and perhaps it’s out of place for me to state it since I am not the proprietor of this blog. Please forgive me, Art, if you think I’m crossing the line.
It’s one thing to wonder privately what one’s motives are for posting on a blog site. It’s quite another thing to question a person’s motives publicly. If a question about Dr. Hart’s motives becomes of great concern to someone, he or she should communicate this with DGH privately.
DGH is undoubtedly representative of a large contingent of views on the matter of Enns and many of the other issues discussed on this blog. His voice on this blog is intelligent and interesting, even though I usually have my disagreements with him.
I locked horns, so to speak, with DGH on one of these threads, but I believe we did so in a mutually respectful manner. I would hate to see DGH chased off this blog because people start questioning his motives. That just seems really unfair to me.
Darryl, I don’t know why you like to post so much on this blog, but I’m glad you do.
9 May 2008 at 5.38 pm
Now if Dr. Hart changes his view on the religious nature of America’s founding, abandons his libertarian politics and starts speaking on the Vision Forum circuit, THEN it might be fair to suppose that he’s angling for a job at WTS.
9 May 2008 at 11.15 pm
Dr. Hart: I am an Urban Michigander…so I really can’t speak to the Suburban Philly issue…However I will grant your point that the guard rails are valuable to keep all of us from cultural assimilation, and to lead us toward cultural transformation…lest we end up with a trajectory hermeneutic.
D
9 May 2008 at 11.36 pm
Manlius: Your point is well taken. Perhaps that crossed the line, the intention was not to harm DGH’s reputation. He is, as you point out, the other side of the argument, and often stands alone on these threads, so he at times receives more harsh criticism.
10 May 2008 at 12.41 am
Anon.: I love a good conspiracy theory. It’s almost as funny as old Hazel Motes. So I won’t answer your question directly. It’s too much fun watching your mind work. But I wish you had the chutzpah to come out from behind your non name. It’s a tad disproportionate seeing your speculate about my motives while I don’t even know your cognomen. Let me give you a few more clues. You can look at the NTJ for the past several years to see criticism of WTS on both sides of the aisle. And you can also look at a review of a certain book about George Washington in Mod Ref to see if you think Enns is feeding me lines on how to view America’s Christian founding. Spin away.
Brandon: it’s okay if you brand me RC. I have many RC friends, some of them dear. To be RC is not necessarily wrong, or to hold to tradition or church authority. To think that Reformed Christianity does not include tradition or church authority, as if those are RC attributes, is to misunderstand historic Protestantism. So I don’t mind the accusation. I understand why you think that. I simply wish you’d get the right label.
Philip Nye: could you explain to me what an invisible blog is? I wonder if you might also take a stab at how exactly construing Christianity as a secular faith is TR. The word and deed project of taking every square acre of urban real estate captive has far more affinities to Christian America than I do. (BTW, I did not commute to WSC. And I don’t believe in luck. That really is cruel.)
Manlius (Alex): thanks for encouraging my input. The only reason I hang out on some of these “visible” blogs is that I don’t have a life (or cable). I should add that I care a lot for Machen’s legacy.
10 May 2008 at 3.27 am
Philip, I am siding with Manlius on this one. There must be a spirit of Christian love and charity in the words we type. I for one will give Dr. Hart the benefit of the doubt and assume he is arguing his case out of a concern for the purity of the gospel and church, just like I hope we are.
Dr. Hart, why do i feel like we’re ships passing in the night? Most my comments go soaring by misunderstood. I sincerely hope you do not believe that “to be RC is not necessity wrong”. Frankly, I’m not sure how a person in the “Reformed” tradition could make such a statement. And for the “third” time finding similarities between (different) viewpoints is not tantamount to equating them (I also support the use of confession, creeds and tradition, just not like the RCC does).
Dawn, very well said. Your nuanced position is precisely what Hart is failing to comprehend. Instead it seems he is coloring this subject with stark either/or dichotomies. Then again perhaps color is the very thing need, seeing things in black and white is often quite reductionistic. As if one must either unquestionably accept every jot and tittle of the Confession OR be lost at sea with the United Church of Christ and pomo’s.
10 May 2008 at 10.06 am
Brandon: if you support confessions, creeds, and tradition — you left out office and church power — why did you write: “Perhaps I am stepping over the line, but I am having trouble differentiating your logic from that of the Roman Catholic Church. Both the you and the Catholics argue for some sort of Magisterium that (at least functionally speaking) posses the keys to the kingdom of interpretation.” Why isn’t your position akin to the RC one? Or how is yours different from mine? You seem to think that mine veers toward Rome, and you didn’t seem to mean that as a compliment, and yet you seem to think we’re agreed or misunderstanding each other. Perhaps you could explain what’s wrong with my view of creeds, tradition, office, and church power.
10 May 2008 at 3.27 pm
Dr. Hart: I apologize for not giving you an exhaustive and systematic list of everything I support. I do support church office and power for the record (in a modified Congregationalist model that is).
Im not sure what more I can say about what I believe is wrong with your view. On the question of our method of doing theology, I do not believe we are “agreed or misunderstanding each other”, we simply disagree.
You seem to argue that we should read the Scripture exactly how it has been read before; to do otherwise is evidence of autonomous unfettered human reason. I disagree. Frame rightly notes,
“If it is “autonomous” to differ with one’s tradition, what about people who are “situated” in Arminian, or Roman Catholic, or Charismatic traditions? Are they, too, to be meekly submissive to their teachers and traditions? Or are they to be like the noble Bereans and search the Scriptures to determine if these things are so (Acts 17:11)?”
Again what I think is mistaken in your view of the “creeds, tradition, office, and church power” is that their interpretation of Scripture can never be critically challenged by divergent views (within the Reformed community). I believe is the opposite of a truly Reformed methodology that is grounded in “sola scriptura.” Further, I continue to insist that this view, which ties tradition, office, church power, confessions, and what seems similar to a divinely authoritative church counsel(s) (from your vantage point, not the framers), is dangerously close to what the RCC argued during the Counter-Reformation.
11 May 2008 at 9.04 am
Brandon, I think I see your point. But when I was debating Frame, I didn’t think I was debating with an Arminian, Roman Catholic, or Charismatic. I was under the impression that he held to the Wesminster Standards (how his view of the regulative principle followed was certainly puzzling), that he had received and adopted them ex animo, from his soul, no fingers crossed, that he was an officer in the PCA, and that I didn’t need to supply proof texts for every assertion in the Westminster Standards. I thought he and I agreed on their truthfulness. Obviously, that thought proved my fallibility.
I agree, that an Arminian, Roman Catholic, and Charismatic would not start out with a prejudice in favor of the Standards. And then I would certainly appeal to Scripture and theological reasoning of various kinds. But within a Reformed communion or institution where members have taken vows to uphold a confession and catechisms, it strikes me as odd that members can question the shared theological outlook and then also claim to be more faithful to the Bible than the tradition.
Those dissenters from the Westminster Standards have every right in a free country to call their views biblical, and more biblical than the tradition. But do they have a right to call themselves the upholders of the tradition when in fact they are criticizing it? Can they call themselves Reformed when the defenders of the Reformed tradition have concluded that they are not Reformed? Did Luther continue to call himself Roman Catholic? Did Calvin?
So the problem is one of maintaining your membership within a communion or tradition that requires holding certain doctrinal and ecclesiastical truths. If you need to maintain those beliefs for membership, is it really a violation for the tradition or community to kick you out when you no longer hold those beliefs? Is it even plausible that someone who doesn’t hold the communion’s beliefs can then tell the communion what their beliefs should be? (Don’t we expect Republicans to be in the Republican party, not to be Democrats who keep telling the Democrats that to be truly Democratic they need to be Republican?)
The problem here is one of intellectual honesty, not from the abstract situation of trying to discern among a variety of Christian positions which is the correct one. It is the difficulty of being situated within a specific tradition or communion and then trying to figure out how much dissent is permissible.
If your position is that the Protestant teaching of sola Scriptura means we are always questioning, always searching, always criticizing, then creeds and subscription really have no place among Protestants. Of course, some Protestants have asserted no creed but the Bible. But all the creeds, confessions and catechisms that Protestants produced in the 16th and 17th centuries would suggest that the original proponents of sola scriptura hardly conceived of the Bible as the only creed, or that sola Scriptura prevented the production of a creed designed to affirm truths that endure.
13 May 2008 at 3.51 pm
Dr. Hart:
Hello again. I agree with you that the nature of our argumentation will differ based on our setting. However, if you are going to urge (which you should) Arminians, RC, and Charismatic’s to see the truth of Calvinism, Ceasationism, etc. than you must (or should) also be open to critique and alteration of your own views. Interpretive humility and the spirit of the Reformation demand it. Ironically, I believe (in some ways) you are the one being weighed down by Enlightenment ideologies in purporting the framers of the WCF rationally “figured it all out” theologically. As if theology or doctrine is a completely static enterprise and an “absolutely true and exhaustive” interpretation with a zero margin of error if possible from a group of finite, sinful, and culturally situated men. And if it is not why is it such a blasphemous idea to revise the WCF or write a new one?
Further, I wonder if your two-party (political) Western framework (which you specifically mention) is influencing this discussion. It’s interesting how many biblical scholars outside of the states have observed that we often (subconsciously) reduce conversations like these to two camps, without nuancing mediating positions. Is it possible to begin with the presupposition of the Reformed faith and from the inside (say PCA, OPC) disagree with smaller matters as biblical investigation leads ones conscience (cf. Luther) to differ with some of the particulars of the Confession? Was Van Til not Reformed because of his view of the Sabbath, or is John Frame not Reformed because of his middle-knowledge Calvinism or view of the regulative principle? Of course eventually the question becomes how far can one move from the Confessions before they are no longer considered “Reformed”. That’s up for debate (as you sort of mention), but again I believe something that the early Reformers taught us is to question the tradition in light of Scripture. Of course one can take this too far but the imperative remains (in my mind). Therefore I don’t think that if someone (Enns?) doesn’t walk lockstep with the framers of the WCF (which is still being debated) they ought to be tossed to the curb. For example, I vote Republican but I am certainly do not agree with everything in the unwritten Republican “confession”. Overall it’s closest to where I am at, so I stick in the group and work from “reform” from the inside. Similarly, I may be in the PCA and not agree with everything jot and tittle of the confession but I would hope that if there is enough continuity I could remain in communion. I believe a Baptist can become a member at a PCA church (but not clergy). Let me qualify that with stating that the analogy is not perfect and I am not part of a strict Reformed denomination.
And my position if “not” that Sola Scriptura means that we must have a negative view of tradition and always criticize it as aggressively as possible. I differ from say the post-conservative theologians on this point. Not simply because they swerve from the confession but because they are playing fast and loose with the “Bible” (so denying penal-substitution, open theism, etc). I certainly want to say that whoever disagrees with the tradition has the “burden of proof” to prove their case, but their case is not a priori wrong because they are disagreeing with the status quo. Creeds where needed during the Reformation and are still needed today (both old and “new” ones).
13 May 2008 at 3.58 pm
sorry for the poor spelling in my last post:
-I work “for” reform from the inside.
-my position “is” not that Sola…
-creeds “were” needed during the Reformation…
14 May 2008 at 10.35 pm
BH, no one is saying that open theists or charismatics are wrong simply because they don’t affirm the Westminster Standards. The question is whether they are Reformed. Generally speaking, if someone criticizes the Reformed tradition and says it’s provisional they are not Reformed, unless you want to affirm that provisionality is of the nature of being Reformed. Sure, said critic can then claim to be biblical. But Wesleyans, Lutherans and Roman Catholics also claim to be biblical. “Being biblical” still leaves unresolved whether the critic is Reformed.
15 May 2008 at 8.56 am
Phillip and Anon: Is the welcome home party for Prof. Enns still going on (and why didn’t Brandon get an invitation)? I can’t imagine you lack other theories about the vast right wing conspiracy. Must be a good party.