There was resistance to the progressivist trajectory among
the Medieval proponents of Sola Scriptura. While many of the groups were
essentially orthodox (by Protestant standards) they nevertheless did not share
the later Protestant views and narratives with regard to the (progressively
orthodox) development of Roman Catholicism and its theology.
On what basis did they reject it? For them a commitment to
Sola Scriptura was buttressed in many cases by a distinct ideological narrative
that utterly rejected the Papacy and its claims and believed it not to be
representative of the Bride of Christ in a somewhat defective but contextually
understandable form, but the Antichrist, the Babylonian Harlot of Revelation.
The fact that these groups had some of the developmental details wrong
(regarding the Donation of Constantine for example) in no way detracts from the
realities of Papal history, its claims, its deceptions and certainly the
principles at stake.
The Protestant Reformation (as an aspect of ad fontes Renaissance impulse) briefly
enhanced and expanded this modus
cogitatum only to abandon it in light of Magisterial and Sacral concerns,
eventually subsuming and all but eliminating the bulk of pre-Reformational
witness in the process. The medieval protestant sects were (with a couple of
exceptions) swallowed up into the Reformation's Neo-Constantinianism and its
necessary offspring, Neo-Scholasticism. It was sadly tantamount to a Second
Constantinian Shift.
Returning once more to the Trinity, some Scriptures seem to
suggest Subordination and when dealt with they should stand as such. Others passages
seem to reject it and when preached they too should stand. Is this foolishness?
Read the opening chapters of 1 Corinthians, a passage on theological
prolegomena if ever there was one. While foolishness is often decried as moral
defect in Scripture, in 1 Corinthians it means something quite different and I
would argue it has a direct bearing on how we understand and reconcile (or not)
the doctrines of Scripture. Many have pondered the relationship between
philosophy and theology and have been all but forced to rely upon the former in
order to construct the latter. Paul answers this question in 1 Corinthians 1-4,
but even the subsequent chapters continue the interaction and provide ethical
applications of the doctrinal principles and foundations Paul establishes in
the opening of the epistle. The Apostle's answer is not one that has gained
much traction in Church History and in reality most theologians and schools of
thought have explicitly rejected his method, epistemology and application.
A seeming absolute Unity and even absolute Subordination are
textual realities. I say let them stand and preach and teach them in their
contexts. Verses and passages that seem to reconcile the tensions, preach and
teach them in their contexts as well. The same is true of the Incarnation when
referencing divinity and humanity. We can speak of a doctrine of God and a
Tri-Unity but I believe these concepts are far more nebulous, mysterious and
logic defying than the Nicene tradition represents.
We hear of terms such as Eternal Generation, Perichoresis and
Spiration. They are valid but only to a point and yet when absolutised and
systematised I believe them problematic.
Some will argue Perichoresis is a concept derived from
exegesis of John 17 and indeed the language there indicates interpenetration,
indwelling, permeation and some kind of mutual relationship and yet the
language is also applied to the Church and while the Church exists in organic
union with Christ, how far is this to be taken? Is the Church effectively part
of the Trinity? Are such questions even valid or helpful? Is it helpful to
extract a doctrine and develop it by wedding it to other concepts like
generation and spiration? I would answer not only in the negative but I would
sound a warning. Not only are we beginning to 'dissect' the Godhead we are
delving into waters far beyond what is revealed in the text. The analogical
language must suffice. Let's beware absolutising specific points and forming
them into nodes for systematic enterprise.
Eternal Generation echoes the 'begotten' language of
Scripture and some of the difficulties arise in the face of the Incarnation and
what is meant by Sonship. Evidently and mysteriously the Second Person of the Trinity
'changed' in some sense by permanently taking on a human nature and yet of
course we all acknowledge Divinity is immutable. Hence, 'logically' we must
conclude that Christ has two natures and thus we escape the difficulty. And yet
what is a nature? What is a person?
These are tricky waters indeed and some theologians have all
but drowned. This is especially true when they approach such questions with a
mindset of revision by the standards of a hard or absolute logic. Even the
traditional formulations, with all their reliance on speculation, logic and
coherence will still acknowledge a degree of mystery. Many Post-Enlightenment
theologies will attempt to employ more robust standards of
coherence-verification or in other cases Baconian-scientific standards and they
too get into trouble. They try to say too much and are too exacting in the
results they would produce. My 'revision' if it can even be called that errs
(if it errs) in the opposite direction in calling for a great deal of un-development,
transcendence and mystery.
Returning to the Incarnation and the questions of sonship and
generation, God does not change and yet Christ was (even prior to the
Incarnation) the Son of God and clearly Christ is presented not only as the
image/icon of God but is Jehovah Himself.
That said generation itself (let alone sonship) implies subordination.
Temporality is implied in the language of begetting and indeed the Scripture
uses temporal language when referencing the Son. Eternal Generation is a way or means to phrase these concepts in
which Christ's sonship exists from eternity and yet clearly this is not what
every relevant verse means to imply. These exceptions do not negate the larger
doctrine but is the dogmatic formulation in this case a help, a hindrance or
perhaps something superfluous?
Spiration a term birthed by Medieval Catholic theology
attempts to subtly avoid some of the problems and entanglements when a term
like 'procession' is used. Obviously there's a great deal of historical baggage
here as well and the Eastern Churches are viewed as being on the wrong side of
these debates. The term and concept rest largely on a series of deductions and
attempts to reconcile the filioque
without eliminating the economic arrangement with the Trinity. Today of course
there are many that functionally deny the economic aspects of the doctrine and
are quick to label them as representing subordinationist tendencies.
In the end these terms are not really the fruit of exegetical
exertions but are instead largely philosophical attempts (valiant at times to
be sure) to reconcile oneness and threeness. Valiant but I would argue
misguided and in the end harmful in that they functionally introduce another
authority alongside Scripture, a philosophical grid which is functionally imposed on the Divinely inspired text.
Additionally we could delve into the labyrinth of
terminologies which are only further compounded by the fact they must be spoken
of, debated and arranged in languages other than New Testament Koine and the
Greek of Late Antiquity.
Terms like Being, Person, Substance, Subsistence and Essence
are all terms deeply rooted in philosophical inquiry and discourse. As English
speakers we also must run them through the filter of Latin. They are valid
concepts to be sure but even their secular considerations are labyrinthine and
effectively result in dead ends. One is left with a host of probabilities,
possibilities and speculations that rest in coherence, itself unable to escape
contextualisation, subjectivity and categories rooted in finite experience. To
transfer these discussions into the realm of the Godhead is not only
problematic but potentially disastrous.
These are nebulous and at times equivocal concepts that have
been philosophically synthesised with Scripture and welded into dogma in an
attempt to formulate symbols. These symbols are meant to reflect Scripture but
instead reflect remonstrations, a series of arguments and procedural
difficulties regarding logic in particular, philosophy in general, linguistics
and it must be begrudgingly admitted factional politics. The resulting symbols
are the fruit of dialectic process as opposed to Scriptural exegesis.
The creeds and confessions serve a functional purpose and should
not be ignored but at the same time a revisitation is in order. To what end? To
overthrow concepts and reconstruct the formulae? No. Rather we can study them
and learn the lessons, learn from past mistakes. We don't need to reinvent the
wheel but at the same time symbols, even if reckoned ancient, are not
canonical. I say this fully realising that many treat them as such. They must
be weighed and evaluated, not taken as non-negotiable givens. The principles
that undergird them need re-examination.
Will the end result be different? No, but many of the
technicalities and methods are likely to change. Apprehension of Divine Truth
as opposed to comprehension is what we're looking for. And in the end most
attempts to form comprehensive airtight coherent theological formulae have
failed and in addition they constantly fall prey to the contemporary philosophical
milieu and as a consequence have simply fomented further disunity.
A reconsideration and reformation of prolegomena will lead to
both an appreciation for historical symbols but at the same time will strip
them of their authoritative claims. This needs to happen, not to liberalise the
Church, quite the opposite. Rather, to return us to the Scripture, to a
doctrine of Sola Scriptura that includes the doctrine of sufficiency something
creedalism and confessionalism de facto
deny.
Creedalists consistently attack the Biblicist position, what
they sometimes will caricature as not Sola Scriptura but Solo Scriptura. This semantic sleight-of-hand is the
confessionalist's way of retaining their claims to Sola Scriptura even while
the doctrine is buried under mountains of philosophical and scholastic
discourse, broad traditions and narrowly speaking, denominational narrative
politics. Additionally the appeal to the practical realities is made as indeed
a myriad of denominations and congregations profess to hold to the doctrine of
Sola Scriptura and yet are widely divergent in belief and practice.
As has been argued elsewhere the doctrine is effectively
meaningless unless it is expanded to include not only a robust doctrine of textual
preservation but a zealous and even severe understanding of sufficiency. Once
these criteria are applied one quickly discovers that though lip service is
often paid, very few denominations and congregations even attempt to apply these
concepts in how they view and implement Scripture Alone. In other words the
vast majority of congregations (and by definition all denominations) have to
varying degrees abandoned the principle.
They need to be challenged and wielding this same inspired
sword we can revisit not only the errors of the post-Constantinian
ecclesiastical order, but the narratives and doctrinal developments of Roman
Catholicism, Scholasticism, the Magisterial Reformation, Protestant
Scholasticism and post-Enlightenment manifestations of creedalist
Protestantism.
This return to Scriptural Sufficiency will help us not only
to dismantle extra-biblical dogmatic structures but will also allow us to
recover doctrines like the Trinity and consider them in both doctrinal and
doxological terms. There is both a simplicity and inexhaustible profundity in
Divine Revelation and yet the answers are found in submission, trust,
reflection, worship and communion, not in philosophical dissection. This is not
to suggest for a moment an emotive prioritisation or a diminishing of the
intellect. Rather, it is to re-tool both of these epistemologically necessary
impulses and re-root them in a foundation comprised of revelatory faith.