The problems involved that Berkhof refers to concerning the Godhead and the Incarnation are dilemmas only for the systematician who thinks he can dissect the very nature of God. Our task is not to parse, disassemble, and re-engineer Biblical doctrine into a form that fits our limited, temporal, and fallen notions of symmetry or aesthetics (as some have argued) but rather to submit to what has been revealed.
I literally laugh when Berkhof levies criticism – that in the
fathers, the work of Christ is not always presented in the same way. Has he never
read the Scriptures? The New Testament does not lay out the precisionist
approach of the systematician when it comes to Christology and soteriology.
Even today there are questions as to the merit-obedience paradigm and the
atonement is presented as vicarious in some places, a ransom in others, and
while a few verses hint at particular redemption, that doctrine is more a
result of deduction than exegesis – the Scriptures usually speak in universal
terms. The lines between deity and humanity blur – as we might expect and most
of these debates end in mystery if they're not forced by epistemological
assumptions and commitments.
What Berkhof decries as a moralistic strain is not a problem
with the fathers but rather the imposition of the Magisterial Reformation's
understanding of sola fide constrained within a strict framework of forensic
justification. The New Testament doesn't compartmentalize the various facets or
aspects of Christian soteriology and uses these terms much more freely. There
are literally dozens and dozens of verses and whole passages that expect and
demand obedience and tie the concept in with saving faith. The call to
perseverance and obedience is not moralizing, but the application of New
Testament soteriology – something the Early Church Fathers understood well
enough in their willingness to limit concepts and simply apply the text. This
would change of course, especially as the Church moves into the third century,
but to read these men and criticise them through the lens of the Magisterial
Reformation is a pointless exercise, rooted not in the doctrines of the New
Testament, but in a historical narrative wed to epistemological assumptions –
the claims of which can and must be questioned.
This is not to say the Early Church Fathers are infallible or
always sound vis-à-vis the New Testament. But we can easily levy the same
charge against the theologians of the Reformation and certainly their
descendants like Berkhof. Surely his identification of the supposed moralism of
the fathers with the expectations of the heathen must be rejected.
As far as the sacraments are concerned, Berkhof's own
theological paucity is on display. Once again the dynamics and dialectical tensions
generated by such questions do not trouble the fathers. Berkhof's own
impoverished and frankly confused understanding of such questions (as
referenced above with regard to Augustine) is not the result of sound exegesis
but the subjugation of his thought to the requirements of Enlightenment logic
and the prioritisation of the logic of Decretalism over and against New
Testament doctrinal dynamics and the question of means.
Good works are essential for salvation as they bear witness
to faith and are the outward expression of it. They are not meritorious being
viewed in terms of accumulation or quantity – thus relegating salvation as a payment
due. Rather they are related to a question of quality, a newness of life, a
holiness without which no one will see the Lord. The duality of the believer's
life is on full display in epistles such as 1 John, and in Paul's famous and riveting
and yet oft misunderstood dynamic in Romans 7-8.
The term 'law' is defined by context – and even this is not
always an easy task, and certainly one that often defies the categories of the
systematician. The nova lex dilemma
that so troubles Berkhof is neither a problem for the fathers nor for the
authors of the New Testament. Law need not always be forced into a legalistic
framework when tied in within the larger discussion of soteriology – nor need
we hear the fallacious arguments of the Theonomists who argue for a
Mosaic-rooted sanctification, a Judaizing position rejected by the New
Testament at multiple points. The commands of God and the appealed to (but
largely un-codified) universal law is our calling for this is life in the
Kingdom. We are provided the broad strokes, not the specifics which require a
list of 'Do not' prohibitions, but rather wisdom and the command to 'do'. Once
again the questions associated with law and obedience are not reckoned in terms
of a legalist-type quantity which would fuel futility and grant no hope, but
rather in quality, the newness of life in the Spirit, transformation, renewal,
and reconciliation, which play out in the believer's life. These are required,
but all too often this expectation is obscured by the imposition of the
legalist framework and the discussion is frequently bogged down by questions of
whether or not God has lowered the standard of perfect righteousness, and
questions of imputation versus infusion. The Scriptures for the most part do
not present these questions in such a way and it seems clear that theology in
the New Covenant is not a platform or laboratory for the dissection and teasing
out of endless inferences by means of dialectic and disputation – the well trod
if erroneous path pursued by the Scholastics and their progeny.
And yes, the Early Church possessed a vivid sense of
imminence and their outlook was eschatological. Some held out hope for an
Earthly millennium while it's clear enough that others did not, which contrary
to Berkhof may have included the doctrine found in Barnabas. Regardless, both
camps were apocalyptic. The fact that this perspective and posture was lost
over time and subsumed by the Constantinian ethos and its focus on civilisation
building (and thus mammon) is nothing to celebrate or perpetuate – a point of
needed reform utterly missed by the Magisterial Reformation and the
Confessionalist tradition.
Berkhof is clearly not fond of the Early Church Fathers and
seems happy to move past them – to the era of Nicaea and the more elaborate
philosophical-theological constructs of that period – fodder for a theologian
such as himself. But with this shift came not only new questions but an
entirely new posture and approach regarding the nature of theology. To be fair,
the seeds were already present especially when one looks at the trajectory of
some of the second and third century apologists, not to mention the relationship
with Hellenistic philosophy as seen with figures like Clement of Alexandria. While
in some respects the knowledge of the Church has increased through the ages, a
more careful reflection drives one to wonder just how beneficial and even how
faithful this shift in theological prolegomena really was. Berkhof the
systematician views it positively but I would question his judgment.
Regardless, I find his summary of the Early Church Fathers to be refreshing and this despite his assessment and its underlying criticisms. What he views as insufficient is actually close to an ideal and one often echoed in the primitivist-restorationist vision of the First Reformation. In other words, his assessment presents something of a dynamic – an inspiring depiction which due to its assumptions and conclusions must ultimately be rejected.