A
few thoughts…
Years ago before I was married I lived
for a brief time in the American South. In 1998, I shared an apartment with a
roommate who was a Theonomist, and needless to say we didn’t always see eye to
eye.
I was sitting at the kitchen table with
another friend and we had been working on issues related to Justification for
quite some time. If I recall we spent a good number of hours in coffee shops
and pulling late nights talking about it. My roommate was in awe that we could
spend so much time on a topic which to him apparently was pretty simple. He
never said the words, but it was almost like he was saying… “Justification? You
haven’t got that figured out yet? Hey, it’s by faith.”
I remember us being amused with his
frustration that we could so endlessly pursue such a blatant and simple topic.
Obviously he hadn’t really spent any time looking into the issue.
Like most Biblical doctrines,
Justification is indeed quite simple, but also like most Biblical doctrines it
is also an almost inexhaustible labyrinth of complexity and dialectical nuance,
an endless treasure trove of revealing Divine glory and instilling wonder.
And with any topic this rich and complex
there are endless questions and debates and to say it gets a little heated at
times, is putting it lightly. In fact if one narrative of history is correct,
you could says wars and social upheaval have hinged on how this doctrine is
understood. I even heard one philosopher-theological rather absurdly suggest all
of Western Civilization is built on the doctrine of Justification by Faith
Alone.
Many of the legitimate questions I would
argue stem from differences in methodology. How is Scripture structured? How do
we formulate dogma or doctrine? And of course the historical issues with all
their baggage come into play.
Do we dig into the text, extract
doctrinal topics and place them into categories based on logical order? Of
course then we must discuss whether or not we’ve come up with the right
categories, what is our doctrine of logic and so forth. Each of these subjects
can easily fill a library bookshelf.
Justification in particular is a quite
potent and divisive issue because in the Protestant historical narrative, this
was the issue which led to the Reformation, and provides it with both the casus
belli and raison d’être.
Most Protestants (erroneously I argue)
recognize the Roman Communion as the legitimate church up until the 1500’s. Of
course when the Ancient Latin Church became the Roman Catholic Church is another
debate. Regardless for many Protestants, Justification by Faith Alone (Sola
Fide) is the article by which the Church stands or falls.
But how is this to be understood?
Historically it is problematic because one is hard pressed almost to the point
of despair to find Luther’s formulation before the 16th century.
Certainly the essential issue is…what does the New Testament say?…but it sows
many a seed of doubt when for the better part of fifteen centuries you can’t
locate it, taught in that way, in any historical text. This has led many
Protestants to view it as a ‘recaptured’ or ‘recovered’ doctrine. Alternative
explanations are too troubling to seriously consider.
Many Protestants have taken the doctrine
of Sola Fide and placed it into a position of doctrinal prominence or
centrality. Some have argued, and I would be in agreement, that making Sola
Fide the Centraldogma, has actually
harmed the full scope and development of many other doctrines. Most theologians
following the impulse to systematize have read doctrines like Sanctification,
Assurance, even their understanding of the Church and Sacraments (ordinances)
in light of Justification by Faith Alone.
There’s quite an active debate at
present within Reformed circles over this issue. A lesser debate is taking
place over the whole issue of method which I think is actually paramount. Many
of the questions and battles would simply evaporate if a different method is
employed.
History again comes into play. For most
of the Reformed community their historical confessions play a key part. And
those confessions were forged employing a certain method and mentality with
regard to doctrine. This establishes certain rather formidable walls, not easily
overcome. In fact, I don’t believe they can be. Such a Reform would essentially
entail Doctrinal Revolution and lead to a negation of both historical identity
and validation. The reforms I would advocate would essentially undo the
Reformed wing of Protestantism. This is why I cannot in good conscience
identify myself with the movement, even though at one time I was a zealous
partisan. An outsider might place me on the fringe of the movement, but those
within understand clearly enough my positions undermine fundamental structures
of what it means to be Reformed.
Despite my pessimism toward Reformed
Protestantism, I still cannot entirely vacate the discussion in these circles.
The Reformed community is hands down the most intellectually vibrant wing of
Protestantism. That’s not always a good thing. Historically intellectual
vibrancy and the need for progress and development led the Church down some bad
roads, but ossified dogma can also prove harmful. In fact, I would argue such a
mentality toward documents like the Westminster Confession stifled real and
badly needed thinking and rather than uphold the system and mindset of the
drafters, late 19th century and much of 20th century
Reformed Protestantism had actually departed from it. Rigid thinking and cold
logical method applied to the Westminster Confession led leading stalwarts like
the Hodges and Dabney to actually hold to a reduced theology not quite in line
with or in the spirit of the 17th century authors they so wished to
emulate and gave birth to various 20th century theologies which only
served to confuse rather than clarify the salient issues. I’m thinking of
everything from Gordon Clark, to Carl McIntire, to John Murray. Others would
include Geerhardus Vos and Meredith Kline who I tend to hold in high regard
despite some sizable points of difference. In terms of the debates between the
Klineans and the Murray-ites…which also plays into the Justification Controversy…I
agree and disagree with both.
These assessments are all debatable of
course. Many, perhaps a majority of those within Reformed circles would
disagree with what I just said. But many would not and it’s only been in the
last couple of generations some within those circles have begun to look back
and ask some of these fundamental theological questions and re-visit the
historical theology.
Theology doesn’t just appear. If you’ve
ever been part of Independent Fundamental Baptist circles, you’re familiar with
the thinking that posits their theology and liturgical mindset are straight
from the pages of Scriptures. Just good old-time Christianity right? And most
in those circles believe it because they’ve never bothered to pick up a
history, theological text, let alone a historical theological text. If they
did, they would soon discover that rather being ‘old time’ the theology and
method of their churches is really barely over a century old. From the Altar
Call inspired by Decisionalistic Easy Believism, to the talk of the
pre-Tribulational Rapture, these doctrines cannot be traced beyond the 19th
century. That doesn’t necessarily mean they’re false, but it should give one
pause. If they’re that obvious and essential to Christianity, then why hadn’t
anyone come up with it before?
Much of 19th and 20th
century Evangelicalism has been permeated with Moralism. We all believe in
morals and morality, but many a Bible teacher has made the Moral Imperative a
central element to both his preaching and the Christian life. For those of us
who grew up in those circles, the phrase ‘get right,’ comes to mind. Moralism,
a focus on changing your behaviour has certainly led to many focusing on
themselves, the behaviour of others, and also has played no small part in the
development of rather spirit-crushing legalistic systems of piety.
Moralism, turns people away from Christ
and puts the focus on the individual’s conduct. In the end it can easily become
a system and mindset which really overthrows the gospel of grace and replaces it
with a works based salvation.
In reaction to this and for some other
reasons a couple of factions have arisen within Reformed circles which have
made an attempt to re-focus the gospel and bring about a return to
Christocentricity, the magnification of grace, and to deter anything that even
approaches an understanding of works playing a part in the Christian life.
Go To Part 2
Go To Part 2