Some of this distaste for Restoration is also related to ideas of 'progress' and Primitivism (or Restoration) is by nature regressive. It does not elevate the development of ideas and consciously rejects much of history as invalid. That is to say, a Restorationist will suggest many of the claims and ideas which have come out of history are in many ways just built on bad foundations. Restorationism seeks to sweep this away and get back to the foundation and start over as it were.
As much as Reformed
institutional thinkers might show hostility to this, their own movement was
birthed in a similar way. The Reformation itself was a rejection of the Middle
Ages and an attempt at 'restoring' the Church to its original order. They too
were Restorationists of a sort.
Of course this is complicated
by the fact that this tendency manifested itself in various ways and to various
degrees. Luther was far less concerned with a return to Apostolic Christianity
than perhaps some of the Reformed wing. He sought only to purge the grossest
corruptions and to retain what he determined to be 'good' traditions.
Reformed apologists will argue
the Reformed wing of the Reformation did not challenge the theological foundations
established by the first four Ecumenical Councils and with pride point out that
in no way did Reformation theology completely reject the Scholastic theology of
the Middle Ages.
This is partly true. The
Protestants retained 'portions' of the doctrine produced by the Ecumenical
Councils...particularly those portions dealing with the Trinity. Aside from
that they not only jettisoned the remaining decrees of the first four councils
but all the councils after Chalcedon. Their restoration could be described as
'selective' but nevertheless an attempt at restoration. In my mind much of the
Reformed wing of Protestantism has tried to restore the Church both in terms of
doctrine and polity to where it was about the 3rd century on some
issues and the 4th century on others.[i]
Why stop there? Well, they
might argue the early Church had not yet developed the Trinitarian and
Christological doctrines so essential to the Gospel, or rather to a correct
Gospel understanding.[ii]
We really don't want to go back past that point. To try and reach back into the
ante-Nicene period (before 325) would be to embrace confusion.
But I don't think this stands
up to examination on several points. First of all it's far more complicated and
less clear than many would suppose. Anyone who delves into the controversies
surrounding Arius and Nicaea and that whole period will not only become quickly
confused but probably somewhat disillusioned. In addition to the scheming and
manipulation all coloured by the birth of the Constantinian era, the heroes are
not so heroic and the theology is less than clear and conclusive.
After Nicaea this only worsens
as the controversy rages and the theology continues to develop. Eventually it
could be argued the West and East ended up with very different emphases on the
doctrine of the Trinity. Some of this was due to linguistics but also because
the terms themselves....person, essence, substance etc... are all pregnant with
philosophical ideas and cultural baggage. They were understood in different
ways by different people and the monolithic historical and theological picture
painted by many today is simply not accurate.
While the disagreements over
the 'filioque' seem trivial and certainly were not the sole reason for the East
and West splitting in 1054, they hearken back to key differences from the
Nicene era that were never resolved.[iii]
From the standpoint of an
argument against ante-Nicene Restorationism, the argument is not very strong.[iv]
The body of doctrine produced by the Trinitarian Councils was helpful but also
equally harmful and unnecessarily divisive. Did it really solve anything? I'm
not in any way advocating a less than orthodox position regarding the Trinity
but I am sceptical of both the theological and philosophical categories
employed by the Councils and certainly what has been done since.
Am I advocating a nebulous and
more generalized Trinitarian formulation? I would certainly advocate a more
simple and broad doctrinal formulation, one more closely tied to the text and
less dependent on obscure philosophical categories. This position actually
largely resonates with what you're more likely to find when reading the
Ante-Nicene fathers.
Ironically as upsetting as this
supposition would be to some, I challenge you to enter your average Reformed
Church and find more than one or two people who are even conversant on the
topic. In fact you'll find many if not most embrace heretical ideas concerning
the Trinity and Incarnation.[v]
Their error is simply due to ignorance as they have often not been taught. In
many denominations, tradition-adherence and submission to the authority often
takes overwhelming precedence to actually teaching the people real and deep
theology.[vi]
We cannot erase history, but we
should be open to re-thinking all of it. To some this is unacceptable. I've
noticed with many Fundamental Baptists to even question the doctrinal system is
to them akin to questioning the faith itself and in a cult-like fashion many
will refuse to even entertain the possibility that other doctrinal systems or
traditions might have something to say.
And of course for many
Protestants to antedate the Reformation is unthinkable on many levels. The
Reformation affirmed what they believe should have been retained from the past
and the Church sort of re-booted at that point. You can't go back and question
those foundations. To do so (especially in terms of their polity and other
claims) would lead to their undoing. They would become an illegitimate organization
with no claim to being a 'true church'.[vii]
The only way I came out of
Dispensationalism (apart from the grace of God) was due to a willingness to
question everything. I had to 'go back' and consciously remove the scales from
my eyes and re-read and re-examine everything. I had to be prepared to follow
the road wherever it took me. And if that meant abandoning the theology of the Scofield
Bible, then so be it.
Not only was the Dispensational
system cast down, I felt like I had a whole new Bible. It was really quite
exciting to read it again. The Sovereignty of God jumped out from the pages.
The Dispensational System is built on the foundation that God has two different
people with two different plans. The Jewish plan is on hold until The Rapture
and as soon as the Church is gone the old Jewish system and plan are reactivated.
Once I realized how profoundly this system was in error the 'whole' Bible began
to come together for me, unity appeared was manifested in ways I had never seen
before.
Within a short time I was
discovering new difficulties. Election and Predestination had become so central
to my way of thinking that now I was starting to have problems with many texts.
John 3.16 and 2 Peter 3.9 presented problems because they (with many more)
seemed hard to logically reconcile with the necessary inferences and
conclusions flowing from a predestinarian system. Scripture was not guiding me
anymore, instead I was being governed by a set of system commitments and
rational presuppositions. A crisis was looming.
Thankfully I worked through
many of these issues with close friends and the right books came into our
hands. The authors wouldn't agree with where I've gone but without meaning to
they helped me tremendously to start to embrace an adherence to the Scriptures
rather than a rote adherence to a system or tradition.[viii]
What does this have to do with
Restorationism? Well, there are many groups that have tried to return to the
Church of the 1st century and just as many conclusions as to what it
looked like. We cannot enter into these projects without first thinking about
fundamental questions regarding the Bible itself. How do we read it and what
are we to do with the ideas it presents and how do we shape them? These are key
concepts few people think about.[ix]
Go to Part 3
When it comes to the theology, anti-Restitutionists shrug their shoulders or embrace the development and view it in terms of progress or advancement.
[i] Including the area of polity. Presbyterianism is a primitive and still
pluralized form of Episcopacy. Looking into the history you'll find the
Episcopal system did not develop overnight. It took centuries to come to
fruition. A system very much like Presbyterianism was a stepping stone to the
later fully developed system of Episcopal Bishops. This was in full force by
the time you reach the Council of Nicaea in 325. The move toward Episcopacy is
usually identified with Ignatius of Antioch at the commencement of the 2nd
Century...the very end of the Apostolic Age. In his letters he draws a
distinction between Bishop and Elder (Episcopos and Presbuteros) which is not
clear in the New Testament nor in other contemporary writings. The drive seems
to have been to establish a 'chain of teaching' or 'succession' with the
Apostles vs. the claims of the Gnostics and other heretics who also tried to
claim Apostolic origins. Ignatius wasn't trying to establish Episcopacy per se
but he unwittingly planted the seed which would later bear fruit, a weed which
would ultimately kill the Biblical Polity.
[ii] I
hope it is apparent why to say they are 'essential' to the Gospel is
problematic. The Early Church did not have the Nicene formulae and yet
flourished. Certainly the Church must answer error but sometimes answering
error means the Church itself is forced to change.
It's kind of like a
country which has an agrarian culture and is invaded by an industrial power.
They can retain their values, be conquered, and thus changed. Or they can
industrialise and fight, but in doing so, they've changed their values and in a
sense 'lost' something. It's a no win situation.
When it comes to the theology, anti-Restitutionists shrug their shoulders or embrace the development and view it in terms of progress or advancement.
Can error provide a
means for the Church to work out things, develop ideas and in that sense be
considered helpful? This argument has some merits but few reflect on the
dangers and pitfalls of allowing the enemy to dictate the agenda. In terms of
the Culture War the Church actually chases after the culture, embraces
pragmatics as a tactic and has painted itself into a corner.
[iii] The
Western addition of 'and the son' regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit.
The East holds the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone and the West (or Latin
which would include both Rome and most Protestants) contends the Spirit
proceeds from the Father 'and the son' or 'filioque'. This issue percolated for
centuries and it was the focal point of the deep theological and philosophical
issues between East and West. There were other liturgical issues and certainly
political issues (mainly surrounding the claims of the Papacy) which ultimately
led to the Great Schism of 1054.
[iv] Please
note that's 'ante' or before, not 'anti' which would be against.
[v]You'll
quickly discover most people are either Appollinarians or Nestorian when it
comes to Christology and when it comes to the Trinity, the average person is a
Modalist of some form. While in the East you might find the average congregant
to tend toward Tri-Theism.
[vi] This is a generalization of course but more often than not I have found
it to be true. Sometimes it seems like the leadership is reticent to dive into
too much. In some cases they seem to have a low view of the congregation's
intellectual ability, in other cases it almost seems like they don't want to
reveal too much because they know the congregation and know that certain
individuals will be offended or upset if they venture into certain topics. They
don't want to drive them away. This is especially true in newer congregations
or church plants. Membership ends up being far more important than a general
doctrinal adherence to Reformed theology and they will often obscure what they
actually believe. I hope it's more than merely money but sometimes I'm
sceptical of this.
I have also found this
to be true with many 'ministries' and the catalogs and materials they produce.
American Vision, Vision Forum and many other Dominion and Theonomic based
'ministries' do this. It's actually quite deceptive. They don't reveal what
they're really all about. If they did many people would drop their catalog and
walk away. They want to slowly bring you in. There's a sense in which this is
necessary to argument but it's one thing to teach gently and something else to
entice.
Over the years I have
been to some Reformed churches that do engage in serious teaching but this
seems to be a minority. Perhaps my experience is an anomaly. In many
Fundamentalist Churches they are light on doctrine but very heavy handed and
detailed when it comes to 'standards' regarding clothing, behaviour etc...
[vii] Since I consider their polity unbiblical and what they claim to be 'the
Church' is actually what we might call a Para-Church organization, i.e. the
Denomination, I don't think they have a leg to stand on anyway. Individual
congregations within their polity are indeed Churches, but the denomination
itself can make no such claim unless it contends to be the actual Universal
Visible Church, an absurd claim which only few denominations dare to make.
[viii] They, and I'm thinking of people like Iain Murray might have wished
only to add to the depth and breadth of the Reformed tradition and to resist
the constrictions brought about by Hyper-Calvinism, but actually reading Murray
on Spurgeon helped me to enter onto a road that led me to begin to question the
Reformed Tradition itself. It's interesting seeing the tensions in his own
writings. He strongly adheres to system and tradition in 'The Forgotten
Spurgeon' dealing in part with Spurgeon's battles with Arminianism, but at the
same time his 'Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism' granted a necessary fluidity to the
whole idea of subjecting the Bible to systemic tests of coherence. The lesson I
derived from the latter work was that we must submit to the text even if it
cannot be reconciled with the system. Murray might suggest the system just
needs to be adjusted and broadened, but his critics (and those critical of
Spurgeon) are right to point out that the system itself loses coherence and
begins to collapse.
I just a go a step
further and suggest a change in method, one which still allows for a system,
but one structured and governed by different interests resulting in more
fluidity and less of a concern for the coherence so necessary to the
formulation of dogma and formal confessions.
[ix] Prolegomena
is the section in most theology books that is usually glossed over and yet it
is really the most important. Without answering the foundational questions of
method and epistemology, we flying blind. Everyone has commitments in these
areas but very few have ever thought them through. They're just taken for
granted.