The question of Final Salvation is further clouded by what
could be described as Today's Calvinism and the metanarratives it has attached
to Historical Theology. I'm not merely referring to the so-called New Calvinism
or movements like Young, Restless and Reformed.
By Today's Calvinism I'm speaking of Reformed Theology and
Calvinism in general terms. Specifically I'm speaking of North American Calvinism
in the wake of the 19th century. While international Calvinism went
into decline and largely succumbed to Liberalism, the remaining sectors of conservative
Calvinism underwent changes.
British Calvinism was certainly revived in the 20th
century through the efforts of the Banner of Truth Trust and while they undoubtedly
represent a greater affinity vis-à-vis the Puritan method and ethos they too
have (I would argue) succumbed to some rationalist tendencies. These could
perhaps be described as outworkings of the Reformed Scholastic heritage of the
Puritans themselves. Further, in their battles to combat theological liberalism
they have also been led astray by the quest for coherence and (to a degree)
respectability. There's also not a little nostalgia for the British Empire and
Christendom as a whole. One might say their postmillennial proclivities (while
different from most American varieties) have also helped to shape their
approach and adherence to a larger scholastic programme. The Christendom project
necessitates such an approach and relies on extra-Biblical categories and
development. Thus it is imperative that a positive view of philosophy be
maintained. It is needed to 'properly develop' such systems and categories of
thought.
Dutch Calvinism while on the one hand represents a serious
and even severe departure from Scripture, at the same time represents a more
philosophically interesting impulse. By this I mean the continental Dutch have
been less interested in the rigid analytic methods and epistemological
assumptions that dominate the Anglo-American sphere. Their tendency has been to
synthesize with and borrow from the categories of continental philosophy and
Idealism. While the Dutch and Anglo-American branches of Reformed Theology more
or less arrive at the same place and are both committed to the fallacious idea
of Christendom, they get there in different ways and by different roads. This comes
to the fore in the areas of epistemology and apologetics. The Dutch
intellectual tradition has made some inroads into the American Reformed sphere
but not without controversy. While it has made great gains I am left wondering
if this won't be arrested by the vast numbers of Protestants increasingly
turning to traditionalist Catholic forms of social, cultural and political
thought. While worldview teaching is more continental in its origin, a case
could be made that in the American sphere its basis is undermined by standard
American epistemologies. This is an ongoing conflict both in the culture and
certainly within the Church.
While I tend to be very hostile to Abraham Kuyper and the
legacy of Dutch Reformed theology, when it comes to epistemology I probably
resonate more with the continental approach than I would with the Common Sense
Realism that for so long has dominated the American sphere. That said, I do not
for a moment rely on or resonate with Dutch Reformed thought.
This brings us to American Calvinism which for obvious
reasons is largely the offspring of its British cousin and closely related to
it. The language and cultural ties made this inevitable and yet the American
context allowed Calvinism to develop in a slightly different way. Britain
whether viewed as part of Europe or not was nevertheless affected by the tides
of cultural change and ideas fomenting across the channel. While the American
Revolution wounded the crown directly the realities of the French Revolution
were both metaphorically and literally much closer to home. The 18th
century generated not only revolutions but profound shifts in the intellectual
climate that affected Britain as well as the continent. They also affected
America but less so, especially as the nascent United States was quite
literally so far away.
Enlightenment and its poisoned offspring Theological
Liberalism were also at work on American shores. Indeed the Revolution was born
of Enlightenment thought and yet the developments in European thinking, the
idealism of the 19th century, the impact of Hegel and Romanticism
did not affect America the same way. Many arguments can be marshaled to oppose
what I just said. Indeed, one can point to Hegel's influence on Mercersburg and
its theology. One can also draw parallels between Romanticism and
Transcendentalism and America was certainly not exempt from Idealism either.
Nevertheless my point is that these things came to America in
different and perhaps less potent (or poignant) forms and in general America
was a generation or so behind the developments in Europe. While European
Christianity was in crisis by the 18th century and Free Churches
were breaking off from Established mainstream bodies in the mid-19th
century, in America these realities, or more properly the intellectual forces
behind them, would not come to fruition until the early 20th
century.
Due to its cultural context Conservative Christianity in
America was allowed to develop and continue in its reliance on 'Common Sense'
and positive (non-sceptical) theological approaches to rationalism for a much
longer period than anything found in Europe or perhaps even Britain.
Additionally while conservative churches in Britain and
Europe were by the turn of the 20th century merely attempting to
survive and battle theological liberalism, the American Protestant Church
continued to wield great power and influence until the 1920s. After a
generation of fragmentation and reorganisation conservative and traditionalist
Protestantism now wedded to the Evangelical movement, began to exhibit a great
deal of influence (though not unchallenged) during the Cold War and up to
today. A great deal could also be said
about the influence of the World Wars and their intellectual effect upon the
ideas of Christendom, epistemological certainty and even notions as basic as
common sense.
The United States came through these conflicts relatively
unscathed and untouched by the real horrors of war and the impossible tangles
and hatreds of history. Europe's experience was completely different and this
too helped to shape the nature of thought over the course of the 20th
century.
While there have been many twists and turns and not a few
disputes, the results are that conservative and Evangelical American
Christianity has a very different intellectual heritage than what one finds in
Europe. This too is changing today as conservative and confessional bodies in
Europe continue to fragment and a new type of (largely American inspired)
Evangelicalism has come to shape European Christianity over the past couple of
generations.
Thus far I have been trying to provide some sense of what I
mean by Today's Calvinism and in particular within the North American context.
I have necessarily painted with a very broad brush as this complicated and even
controversial topic warrants not a short essay but a large book. My point in
these preliminary statements is that I believe that Calvinism has undergone
numerous changes and has manifested itself quite differently in different
contexts. I haven't even touched on the differences in America between North
and South, the differences between Scotland and England, the rise of the
Reformed Baptists or the legacy of Calvinism in places like South Africa.
The question of Canadian Reformed thought presents a
difficult question. While on the one hand Canada is very much a part of North
America and the New World ethos, it nevertheless has retained a great deal more
of its British heritage than the United States. On the other hand, the Reformed
community in the United States whether British (Congregational, Presbyterian
and Baptist) or Continental (Dutch, German and Hungarian) has been strongly
influenced by teachings located in the English language sphere, especially so
in the wake of the World Wars. Categorising 'American' Reformed theology is
immediately subject to criticism and yet since I'm speaking in generalities,
the term will suffice. The Dutch Reformed, of all North American communities
has probably retained its doctrinal heritage the most, while most other groups
have (by now) largely succumbed to the Anglo-American form. Some groups like
the French Reformed (Huguenots) for example have completely disappeared, being
absorbed into the English speaking mainstream.
All of these movements to some degree can declare themselves
heirs of the Puritans and the generations of Reformed Scholastics that produced
the confessions and symbols that came to define historic Reformed Theology. Assuming
for a moment that one identifies as a Calvinist or Reformed (for they are not
quite the same thing), every faction, every generational line has developed in
different ways and depending on one's reading of history (in particular the
Reformation) and Scripture, one will to greater or lesser degrees find affinity
within the various groups.
This dual concern over history and the Bible is important
because both are taken into account. Calvinists care about the Bible. That
cannot be disputed. And yet, they also care a great deal about their history
and heritage and who gets to 'claim' the right and even 'true' heritage of the
Reformation. Presbyterians will have one narrative that challenges the claims
of the various Reformed bodies on the continent. Reformed Baptists will
challenge both these narratives and argue from a different vantage point. In
their case they are acutely aware that they differ from Calvin and the early
Reformers and embrace that reality. Thus to a certain extent they're not really
part of the discussion I'm having here. I've never been tempted to become a
Reformed Baptist and thus have never shared in their battles. And yet I view
them as theological products of the Enlightenment impulses I'm speaking of
here. In a way, they represent the culmination of these various tendencies, but
that knot must be untied at another time.
Contrary to the Reformed Baptist claims of representing the
'mature' teaching and outcome of the Reformation, Presbyterians,
Congregationalists and certainly Continental Reformed folks will argue they
represent the 'true' teaching and heritage of the Reformation. Calvin himself
becomes a complicated figure as indeed he was because while he's revered by all,
many take rather sharp exception to certain points of his teaching.
During my time in Reformed circles I was actually of the
'Calvin' school. I was most interested in the first generation of Reformers and
John Calvin in particular. I viewed the 17th century as something of
a defection, not only from Calvin but from the Renaissance Humanism that guided
the 16th century Reformation. It became almost axiomatic that the more
removed one was from the 16th century, the less value you were
likely to find in their writings.
During my first two years as a Christian, which were spent in
Europe, I found when I read modern Reformed writers, they often did not reflect
what I had read in Calvin and even in many of the Puritans. Then, when I
returned to the United States and began to attend Reformed churches and
interact with pastors and congregants, I began to grow really frustrated.
For years I wanted to fight the battle for the True Reformed
Heritage as I saw it. I became convinced that Today's Calvinists were largely
unfamiliar with the theological tradition, the historical theology and indeed
its context, i.e. the Church History under which it developed. I immersed
myself in this battle and realised it was a losing one. Not because I was wrong,
but because you couldn't fight the denominational structures and all that went
with them.
Two semesters of work at a Reformed seminary removed any
doubts.
I found myself getting rather worked up as I continued to
devour the older Reformed authors and then listened to today's teachers. One
might describe the relationship between the 16th and 17th
century Reformed teachers and those of today as symphonic but out of tune. And
I think it has grown much worse in recent years.
Finally I started to read 19th and 20th
century theologians more carefully. I spent more time understanding the
intellectual history not just of the West but of the United States. I kept
returning to the Scriptures and within a relatively brief period I came to several
conclusions.
I was right about the disparity between the Reformers and the
Scholastics. I also believe I was right about the further shift that took place
in the wake of the Enlightenment. It became clear that 19th and 20th
century Reformed thought was not the same as that of the largely 17th
century Puritans. Much had changed and been lost but even the Puritans
represented a defection from the Reformers. Amyraut was arguing this very point
in the 17th century.
But I was also wrong. The Reformers did not create a static
airtight system. It was bound to change. In fact it was inevitable. The
theology they constructed was embryonic and the Reformation was a bigger
concept than the battles over Justification and Ecclesiology. I knew this but
had not fully grasped the sociological and political aspects to this question. These
issues which loomed large for 17th century Calvinists all but
demanded further doctrinal development. Necessarily extra-Scriptural, these
many questions demanded a reliance upon philosophical principles of deduction,
coherence and the like. Thus in one sense you could say the Reformers were of a
different spirit than their descendants. That's true, but their context was
also different. They were involved in the Reformation era and its tumults.
Protestant Scholasticism developed in the context of the battle for Protestant
Christendom, the Wars of Religion, the Age of Reason and the growing scepticism
that it inevitably produced. They utilised a different and more developed
prolegomena and it would be naive to think this wouldn't play out or permeate
the whole of their theology.
And it did, but it took time and went in different directions
as context demanded.
I had been right but at the same time realised much of my
argument was undermined by my narrow focus and expectations of a static system
and tradition. Today's Calvinists on the one hand do not represent the thought
and methodology of the Reformers and even the Puritans but at the same time the
many factions do represent (in different ways and to different degrees) the
legitimate intellectual heritage of the Reformation.
My crusading quest had ended as I realised that the battles
were largely about politics, scholastic method and control of institutions.
I realised that for most of the folks involved in these
struggles, Scriptural truth while important was not paramount. That wasn't
really the nature of the struggle.
I was reminded of this recently while reading some of R Scott
Clark's 'Heidelblog' pieces on the Justification Controversies. He focuses on a
Biblical passage or even one verse and then runs the question through the
Scholastic-Confessional gauntlet. Despite his confidence, the historical
theological conclusions are largely inconclusive other than the fact that
historically speaking, certain camps won the battle and gained control of the
pertinent institutions... or started their own.
But in terms of whether or not this or that view reflects the
Biblical text, that issue (if ever paramount) fades away. That's not really
what Clark is concerned about. He's far more interested in quoting confessions
and catechisms than reckoning with sola scriptura.
He may score some points in historical argument but he can just as easily be
contested. One thing is clear to me, he's more concerned with the Reformed
heritage and a larger metanarrative he wishes to promote. And he is by no means
alone in this. Though some would contest his claims of representing historic
Reformed thought, he can stand firmly on the heritage but the Scriptures are
against him.
It's something we all fall prey to and must guard against.
For Clark and the myriad of scholar-bureaucrats like him, the
doctrine of Scripture is not their primary focus. You can demonstrate their
positions are wrong, and it doesn't matter. The idea that the
heritage-narrative and/or the Confessions could be wrong or erroneous in their
formation is to them... unthinkable. The suggestion itself
is perhaps the greatest heresy. I learned this all too well.
The reasons for relegating such thought as out-of-bounds are
both ideological and practical. In addition to breaking with the narrative
there are institutions at stake and all that go with them. Don't think for a
moment that paychecks, pensions and a lot of practical concerns go into the defense
of 'the faith'. It's not something these sorts of men want to talk about but
during moments of transparency a few of them have admitted to me that such
concerns arrest certain lines of inquiry.
Right around the time I came to these conclusions and in part
because of them, I came to a very different understanding of Scripture, the
nature of doctrine, the Reformation and indeed Church History as a whole. I
began a process of turning my back on Reformed Theology. While I am still very
much a Calvinist when I talk to an Arminian, most Calvinists and Reformed folk
do not consider me to be of their number... which I'm not.
In fact in some ways I have become quite hostile to the
Reformation and much that it represents. While it brought some light, it also
brought solutions that in some cases were worse than the existing problem.
Visiting the Reformation monument in Geneva was at one time
practically a pilgrimage to holy ground. Today, I don't see it that way at all.
In fact, I no longer reckon those men (Farel, Calvin, Beza and Knox) to be
heroes in the least. Going through my old photo albums I wonder why I took so
many pictures from so many angles. Twenty years ago when I was last in Geneva I
was enraptured. Today, my response would be quite different.
And yet I cannot fully divorce myself from the larger
Reformed sphere. It was such a big part of my life for a long time. In fact it
helped define my first decade of adulthood and if you went back over twenty
years ago and told me that I would someday disassociate myself from Calvin and
the Puritans I would have laughed at the very notion.
How different it is for my children. They're not growing up
learning the Heidelberg Catechism or reading the Confessions, things that I had
planned for them long before they were born. They know about them and they hear
them referenced in church as indeed we still have attended services in Reformed
congregations. And yet they will never know that 'Reformed fire' and zeal that
I once possessed. I'm not saddened by this in the least but I find it
interesting to reflect on.
As I continue my own investigations into both Scripture and
Church History I have moved even farther away from Reformed thinking in
general. While there are aspects of Reformed thought that tend to be narrow, in
other ways it can embrace a fairly broad spectrum and there are aspects and
segments of this spectrum I still appreciate.
I no longer have many of the Puritan and Reformed volumes on
my shelves that I once did. In fact if I take stock I've probably eliminated at
least a whole bookcase worth, if not more. That said I still have many Reformed
works in my library and I still enjoy reading certain authors.
I no longer have the resources, time or inclination to gather
and document the myriad quotes and excerpts from pre-19th century
authors which would demonstrate that their thought, categories and even
language are a bit different than modern understandings of Justification but it
can be done and indeed the linked articles by Mark Jones and others at The
Calvinist International gives the reader a little taste of this. I didn't want
to just post the links without giving some explanation as to why... and also
why even though I'm interested, I'm not going to spend a great deal of time
hashing out examples and arguing for this or that faction.
The ironic thing is that some (likely very few) could argue
that my views on soteriology are actually compatible with the older Reformed
orthodoxy. I used to argue as much and I could spend a lot of time trying to
hash that out and explain how I'm still a Calvinist etc. But I'm just not
interested anymore and over time I've moved even farther away from even what
was Calvinist orthodoxy.
Some Reformed thinkers will begrudgingly acknowledge the
shift between past Reformed Orthodox expressions and those of today. They will
insist (with perhaps some warrant) that the older writers could afford to be
more fluid in their categories and
language and that today's authors need to be more precise due to all the errors that have arisen over the past few
hundred years. I understand the argument but at the same time the Puritans were
Precisionists were they not? If anyone was going to be careful with language it
was them. And while I don't particularly agree with them anymore, I don't think
they would take too kindly to the reductionist expressions of our own day. Firm
believers in coherent systematic thought they nevertheless seemed to be more
comfortable with systems even more complex than what our own day is capable of
appreciating.
Language is pushed to the extreme and there are necessary
overlaps and dynamics in how words are used. They were systematic but not
scientific. There are some significant differences. Though at one time the trip
to Bunhill Fields was also a pilgrimage, I'm no longer an aficionado of John
Owen (17th century). That said, there's a difference between his
approach and the pseudo-scientific theology of a 19th century theologian
like Charles Hodge. While most Reformed theologians today would insist they
have abandoned Hodge's methodology and much of what 'Old Princeton' stood
for... have they? I'm not so sure.
This whole discussion used to fascinate me and I was ready to
go to the mat with anyone over it. And yet even when I was a zealous partisan,
the arbiter for me was always the Scripture. I was willing to dump any thinker,
tradition, creed or confession if they or it did not accurately reflect
Scripture. To my frustration I could never quite find one group or era that I
thought had it perfect, holding to everything just right. But then that
extended even to the realm of denominations and traditions. And then in
wrestling with the 'why' of this question, other questions needed to be asked
and eventually, other roads taken.
I'm not interested in the 'Reformed' fight anymore. I have no
desire in being part of the Reformed faction of Protestantism, but I suppose
I'll always be on its fringes and interested in what is being said and written.
Given the recent disturbances over Justification and that the reaction to Shepherd/Federal
Vision has (in my opinion) dug an even deeper and diseased hole, I have as of
late been reading a lot. These links and Puritan quotes brought back both
memories and something of a smile to my lips. It's been a long time since I
poured over the Puritans but the articles provide a taste of waters I once swam
in, a river very foreign to most adherents of Today's Calvinism.
Here are some excellent links which belie the claims of
Today's Calvinism: