Biblicism and the rejection of Classical Metaphysics go
together and this collapse ought to be celebrated. While we do not endorse
Kantian epistemology, his exposure of Western Metaphysics as a paper castle was
in the end helpful. It should have allowed the Bible-believing churches to
break free from the Sacralist-Scholastic tradition and its centuries of
syncretistic philosophical theologizing. The error (I think) is that many
self-proclaimed Biblicists have like dogs returning to vomit re-embraced
Sacralist frameworks of thought and many retain Baconian ideas concerning
epistemology as well as Classical and Evidentialist forms of apologetics. And
thus once again Aristotle and company are placed in a state of rivalry with the
Scripture and its claims.
Trueman and others will be quick to point out that Christian
culture can't be built on fideist assumptions but again this is a false dilemma
that flies in the face of Paul's polemic in the opening chapters of 1
Corinthians, an epistle that (in general) is a rebuttal of Corinthian
philosophical theology and its worldly outcomes.
Whether the Magisterial Reformers avoided revising the
doctrine of God because they accepted its formulation as it stood in the 16th
century or due to the fact that they were primarily focused on soteriology is
(at least in part) open to some debate. The truth is they shattered the
epistemology that produced the Catholic conception of God and thus in
retrospect it makes sense that within a century the doctrine itself was under attack.
Confessionalists attempt to stop all historical movement and freeze their
dogmas at a certain point. The truth is it never worked and thus the
Confessionalist churches continue to dwindle and are subject to endless schism,
eventually dividing over how to read the Confession and who can legitimately
claim its narrative. As I've argued elsewhere the Confession is subject to
revision, both in terms of the actual words and in their interpretation.
I'm not sure I entirely agree with Trueman's assessment of
the Reformers and their seeming rejection of traditional Trinitarian language
as opposed to their later mature reflections. Even the statement regarding the Via Moderna strikes me as problematic as
the movement was in many ways a rejection of Scholasticism. Luther praised
Ockham whose conceptualism/nominalism (depending on one's read of Ockham) was
often associated with the Via Moderna and
contrasted with Thomism and Scholasticism.
Reading the article I'm led to think that Trueman is also
interacting with the Calvin vs. the Calvinists narrative embraced by a minority
within the conservative Protestant world (and yet probably a majority in
mainstream scholarship). It's a point that is often revisited as its validity
would destroy the Confessionalist meta-narrative. For the continuity argument
to work, Trueman (and others) are all but forced to argue for an evolution on
the part of Luther, Calvin et al. in moving from an early-Reformation
semi-Biblicism to a proto-Scholasticism that would become the reigning theological
method in the 17th century. At least Trueman is honest enough to
admit there are some tensions. It would seem that in the minds of many modern
Confessionalists there is no tension but a perfect continuity, a narrative that
proves convenient but doesn't stand.
Fascinatingly Trueman even dives into historiography in order
to make the case, assuming that today's post-Enlightenment progressive views of
history (which have in various forms been largely embraced by the Church) are correct.
Frankly, I'm with the Reformers and the old world at this point. An embrace of
cyclical history is perfectly compatible with progression toward an eschaton
but I see little evidence of actual 'progression' as either a Scriptural ideal
or a historical reality. Industry and technology represent a type of progress
but it can also be argued they represent a species of downgrade. In terms of
political and social thought, the modern era with its Liberalism has certain
advantages but it likewise contains many serious dangers. A seductive ideology
it has certainly infiltrated and poisoned the Church and has (as a result) led
to many evils. With every so-called advance, more evils are introduced (or
perhaps revived depending on how one views the question).
The questions of Divine passibility and immutability are
scholastic tangles that are the rotten fruit of a rotten method. The problem is
an ideal coherent doctrine is held and yet there's both Scriptural data as well
as cogent philosophical argument that militate against it. And thus in order to
defend the doctrine the ramparts are buttressed and built higher, leading to a further
and more complicated conflict. A consistent and rigid Biblicism that Trueman so
evidently despises is able to avoid the questions by ruling such questions as
invalid and beyond the scope of the text. If the text exhibits dualities, then
Biblicism can (or at least ought) to embrace them. Concepts can be limited and
questions left unanswered. If knowledge is understood as little more than
informed ignorance then truly the quest for a systematic, coherent unified
framework can and ought to be abandoned. Scholasticism on the other hand cannot
let such questions alone and the very method demands that they are teased out,
picked apart and worked into the context of a larger system and ultimately
downgraded if not dismissed.
Time and time again this issue is connected to the larger
cultural concern which dominates sacralist thought. The unified theory is
required in order for theology to interact with the world system and forge a
Christian 'worldview', the syncretism sacralists require to construct
Christendom. This misguided notion opens the floodgates and allows worldly
thought to enter the Church and in every case it ends up dominating it. The
concern itself flies in the face of Scripture and once it is wedded to the
method, the end result is nothing less than destructive. Theology is malformed
and ethics are turned on their head.
The article is an interesting read and yet I think Trueman
reveals more than he probably would have wanted, a great many items of interest
that undermine his argument. Secondly, the separation of the doctrine of God
from Scripture serves the historical point he wishes to make but I believe the
argument collapses and is perilous.
The fact that he blames the 2016 Trinitarian Controversy on
Biblicism is (I think) also problematic. If anything I think there were basic
epistemological commitments driving the 'unorthodox' side. I don't think a
tweaking of tradition is always rooted in Biblicism despite the claims.
Everyone is claiming the Bible is on their side. Such claims must be examined and
I would question anyone who attempts to argue that someone like Wayne Grudem is
a Biblicist. One might wish he was but that's certainly not a label that would
apply to him.
That said, my own view of the Trinity is often labeled as
subordinationist as I believe the Scriptures place equal weight on the economic
relationship between the Persons and I view most Protestants and Evangelicals I
know as Modalist in tendency if not in fact. I would not root these views in an
analogy to marriage, an approach that is (in the end) something less than
Biblicist in its approach to the text.
His final point also struck me, a point he had hinted at
earlier and was something that overshadowed the article. Redemptive-Historical
or Biblical Theology is problematic to someone like Trueman and of course this
is part of a series of ongoing debates within the Reformed world. The method,
in focusing on thematic development and doctrines in context is ultimately alien to the kind of
Confessional-Scholastic dogmatics Trueman wants to advocate for and indeed he
feels bound to assert in order to remain connected to his Church History
meta-narrative.
I realise (as I'm sure Trueman does as well) that many
believe Redemptive-Historical hermeneutics can and ought to inform Systematics.
Some will be familiar with the so-called Hermeneutical Spiral which attempts to
integrate the various methods and approaches to Scripture but in the end (I
would argue) subordinates them to propositionally rooted systematics. I wonder
if Trueman is being honest and recognising that the method doesn't work or if
he simply wishes to utterly subordinate Redemptive-Historical hermeneutics (and
Biblical Theology) to systematics, Confessionalism and historic dogma.
Trueman's argument rests on a narrative that wishes to
incorporate a specific reading of the Magisterial Reformation's Confessional
tradition with Western Catholicism. The task is daunting and challenging as I'm
sure Trueman will admit. But is it true? And, is it giving proper place to
Scripture? I'm afraid I must answer in the negative when it comes to both
questions. A fascinating and enjoyable read but in the end I am not convinced
that Trueman has made his case.