Trueman has been talking about Socinianism as of late so this
article wasn't a surprise and as expected he raises some interesting points.
And yet, as usual I also take some exception to his argument.
Of course the Trinity is central to Christian thought and
while Trueman acknowledges the importance of one's view of Scripture, I think
he loses his way on this overall point. Scripture is indeed the central
authority and our doctrine of the Trinity must necessarily flow from it.
However when the doctrine of Scripture is buried by
theological commitments and mired in tradition... phenomena born of the 'deep
historical' method Trueman feels bound to positively interact with... the
authority of Scripture is necessarily lessened or watered down.
Am I suggesting that history should be ignored? By no means.
It would be foolish to do so and yet history is not authoritative. A study of
the Scripture ought to reveal that the main threat to the Church is in fact
false doctrine and false teachers, even the threat of a counterfeit Church. The
corollary concept of the remnant and the generally ominous tone of New
Testament expectation with regard to the course of this age should lead us to
expect that Church History will in fact prove to be a poor guide. This is not
to say it isn't instructive and we need to interact with it, but it is not
authoritative. Our interaction need not always be positive. Interact we must
but always with a grain of salt. The truth is that the majority factions within
the larger concept of the Church – Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and
today, the Charismatic Movement are in fact a very poor guide indeed.*
Trueman is caught on the horns of a dilemma, wishing to
affirm Sola Scriptura and yet also insisting on a meta-narrative that ties
Reformed Confessionalism to the 'historic' pre-Reformational Church and its
cultural and intellectual history.
While some would charge my view with being cynical or pessimistic,
they are in fact labels I wholeheartedly reject. Paul for example didn't think
in Romans 8 that we being slaughtered (or defeated) was a cause for pessimism,
but in fact a form of victory. I will grant such thinking flies in the face of
the world's concepts of success, victory and even optimism. Nevertheless, I
hold with the Scripture and as such reject all forms of triumphalism as
tantamount to apostasy, or at least gateways to it. Once this view of the
Church in this world is understood and applied, the historical dilemmas which
so vex the likes of Trueman all but disappear.
Relying on the artificial framing of Oberman, Trueman
attempts to find a way to incorporate the language, concepts and historicity of
pre-Reformation theology into the Confessional framework. Needless to say it
doesn't work very well. History bears this out in dangers such as Socinianism,
a doctrine he views as born of Scripture divorced from tradition or in the
contemporary drift toward Eastern Orthodoxy and the like, rooted in the desire
for a deeper historic conception of the faith or in other cases (he argues)
rooted in misunderstandings of doctrine.
In terms of prolegomena it is the commitment to metaphysics,
philosophy in general and systematisation that leads so many down paths that in
the end depart from the Scripture. The Socinians have a problem with
rationalism and yet that problem is also present in Protestant Scholasticism.
The debate between say the Socinians and Scholastics is not really over method
or basic concepts but instead is rooted in principles of theological restraint
and questions of authority. Logic pushes the doctrines in directions that in
the end will depart from historic orthodoxy. On some points (such as
Justification by Faith Alone) the Protestants embrace this departure from
history. On others they do not. But at the very least their framework has
re-arranged and re-prioritised many doctrines. While historic frameworks are
retained in form, one could legitimately question if they have the same
substantial meaning. I think usually it's understood that the substance of
doctrines like the Trinity are present and yet in the Protestant form they have
changed and as such are a less significant in terms of liturgy etc... The
form-substance debate is not an easy knot to untangle and I don't think contrived
models such as the Oberman schema prove to be very helpful. If anything I think
they just add to the confusion.
Trueman is right to argue that Biblicism (which is what he's
really arguing against) can go off the rails and thus he's trying to formulate
a restrained historically-wedded version of Sola Scriptura. In reality as a
Confessionalist his primary concern is to wed Sola Scriptura to the
Confessional framework itself, a point that is problematic on many levels. It's
problematic in terms of Sola Scriptura and in terms of the 'Tradition' argument
he's attempting to make. At the end of the day, as many know all too well the
Confession itself proves fluid and subject to the whims of the present hour.
There is a great deal of dishonesty (both deliberate and unintentional) when it
comes to discussions regarding Confessional subscription.
So while Biblicism has its dangers, the Confessionalist
solution, let alone the Oberman model provide no answers. One cannot escape the
mire by expanding it.
The Oberman T1/T2 divide while on a very basic or primary level
is helpful, in the end it is demonstrably artificial. T1 concepts are easily
buried by T2 baggage. He gives the example of the Virgin Birth and the
subsequent concept of the Immaculate Conception, a clear example of tradition
run amok.
And yet are the lines always so clear? Look at the
metaphysical language attached to the Trinity during the Nicene and Post-Nicene
era. It is difficult to sincerely argue that all the concepts and debates are
born of Scriptural exegesis and yet they enter the mainstream tradition of the
Church and we're expected to 'trust' them. And yet what of the 'filioque'? Is
that born of exegesis or is that a tertiary-level doctrine born of
philosophical dilemmas spun off from the formulations and language surrounding
the Trinitarian-Christological controversies of the Nicene tradition?
Likewise there is a common tendency to view various issues as
'solved' and no longer debatable or subject to question. While traditionalist
Christianity views Nicaea as a solved
issue, as just suggested, it's not so simple. What of the Protestant
Confessions? Confessional-ism views these as more or less 'solved' un-debatable
points. Is that T1 or T2? I would argue in the strongest possible terms that
Confessionalism would (under Oberman's schema) fall under T2... quite literally
magisterial formulations. In fact the very prolegomenical assumptions which
undergird Confessionalism (a systematised comprehensive dogmatic formula) are
solidly in the T2 sphere. While some or even most of the doctrines can be
argued from Scripture, there are many assumptions, particularly in the realm of
ecclesiology that have little Scriptural basis but are instead rooted in
pragmatics or in other cases a commitment to certain epistemological
convictions which may or may not be actually true.
As Trueman admits, Roman Catholics also have their
epistemological assumptions and some of their doctrines which seem rather
contrived to a Protestant are actually in keeping with a certain form of logic
or what a Presbyterian Confessionalist might call 'good and necessary
consequence'.
Thus in terms of Biblicism, does Socinianism result from a
rejection of T1 or is it in fact a wholesale rejection of T2? Couldn't one
posit that the Nicene formulation (not the general doctrine of the Trinity but
the actual Nicene theology) is in fact T2? I personally wouldn't go that far
but the argument could certainly be made.
Once again this framework reveals a certain arbitrariness
when approaching the question of tradition. And yet not wholly arbitrary but
rather a case of self-serving narrative. In terms of Trinitarianism and
Christology why does T1 suddenly stop after Chalcedon? If one accepts the
authority of ancient ecumenical councils, why not embrace the first seven as
both Rome and Constantinople do? It would seem the so-called hermeneutic of trust breaks down at this
very (convenient) point.
Additionally why only accept the councils on the points of
Trinitarian doctrine? The councils said a lot more in terms of ecclesiology and
the like that is rejected in toto by
Protestantism.
In general this is a less than candid, less than helpful
discussion. I will admit that Confessionalists have a dilemma and I suppose on
one level they cannot be blamed for trying to find a framework to fit their
narrative but I am immediately suspicious of pat formulations that claim to
solve the problem. They don't and in fact they distract and mislead.
On the basis of Trueman's acceptance of Eternal Generation he
should accept a lot more, but he doesn't and so thus his answer while seemingly
exhibiting a high view of the Church is in fact disingenuous.
I'm not sure where he wants to go with his discussion about
the rise of literacy after the Renaissance but as I've pointed out elsewhere
this argument patently ignores the realities of the First Reformation
(1100-1500) and the abundant evidence that suggests the various persecuted
proto-Protestant groups (such as the Waldensians, Hussites and Lollards) had
high rates of literacy. There are numerous accounts of books being smuggled and
not just the Bible. There were underground scriptoria, and clearly many regular
folk learned to read. They were people of
the book and so I find the (what is tantamount to an anti-literacy)
argument to be disingenuous and in general accepting of the Roman Catholic
legacy... which is one of shame, dereliction and deception.
-----------
*But the Charismatic Movement is new and thus a deep
interaction would cancel out its claims, or so someone might argue. New it is
to be sure, but if we're still here a thousand years from now, then what? If
the movement survives it will (by then) be venerable and thus Trueman's
historiography would (seemingly) demand a deep and positive interaction with
it.