Too catholic to be Catholic 1
Saturday, November 02, 2013
The Source of the Question
This
article is the first of a series interacting with Matt Yonke’s blog post on May
24, 2012. Yonke, a Roman Catholic is in
turn interacting with Dr. Peter J. Leithart, a Presbyterian. The resulting discussion is a very sobering
examination of the interrelationships between Reformed and Roman theology. Neither of these writers is a lightweight,
and neither pulls any punches. This is
exactly the sort of honest dialog that is necessary for the welfare of The
Church. I will post my objections and observations
in the order they are discussed by Yonke.
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/05/too-catholic-to-be-catholic-a-response-to-peter-leithart/comment-page-2/#comment-62615
Federal Vision Theology
What on earth is Federal Vision Theology or Auburn Avenue Theology
(2002)?[1] Federal Vision Theology is a distinctly conservative Presbyterian and Reformed movement with roots
at least as far back as 1975, when the discussion of these issues was hot while
I was still in seminary. These issues
coalesced around 2002 at a pastor’s conference, hence the name Auburn
Avenue Theology; and as a result of the ensuing controversy. Had this coalescence occurred as early as
1985, we would have doubtless sought to be added to the signers of “A Joint Federal Vision
Profession.” In the interim, we
abandoned Presbyterianism as a church and Calvinism as a theology.[2] Nevertheless, our sympathies run very
deep. We apologize wherein we have
failed to grasp the kernel of ideas, and eagerly await the necessary
corrections, whereby we grow together toward the truth. As a very brief and oversimplified summary of
Federal Vision Theology
we humbly offer the following.
·
The Holy Trinity is the
Unique Model for all covenantal relationships,[3] informing all other
theological issues. We comment. What Orthodox, Protestant, or Roman Catholic
could object to this? What claims might
be made in opposition to this? This
seems like a gentle and innocuous way to say that the Holy Trinity is the
center and foundation of all authority.
However, if the Holy Trinity is Unique in this Authority, then several
other things are not: the Bible, Calvin, Luther, the Magisterium, the Vicarage
of Papacy, or any other merely human thing.
Therein lies any anticipated controversy.
·
That the Second Coming of
Christ will not take place until the elect are all gathered into the
Kingdom. We comment. Who can object to this? Nevertheless, this is erroneously termed
Postmillennial Eschatology: it is merely one expression of Postmillennial
Eschatology, and that not its original form.
Not until after 1054 did anyone believe that the end of the millennium
was not around 1000. Moreover, it
expresses an erroneous idea of the Eschaton: for the Eschaton is neither the
linear expression of the progress of prophetic prophecy, nor is it the cyclical
repetition of history as eastern religions frequently teach. The Eschaton is the Mystery presence of the
Kingdom of God, which is present wherever Jesus, the Christ of God is
present. How is it that we can so
blithely discuss the word, eternal, without realizing that it means without any
reference or ability to measure time?
Augustine shows that the ubiquity of God does not refer to the
distribution of God all over the Universe, which is the very definition of
Pantheism. Augustine shows that the
ubiquity of God means that all of God is present everywhere, at all times, in
and beyond the Universe. The Eschaton
adds to ubiquity, the facts that Christ is especially present to hear the cries
of sinners to repent; that He indwells all believers, together with the Father
and the Spirit, from their Baptism; and that He is especially present in the
Liturgy of the Word, in the Liturgy of Communion, and in prayer. It is wrong to say that in Communion we have
a foretaste of the blessings to come. In
Communion we partake of the fullness of Christ and all that heaven has to
offer; receive the beatific vision, or at least a fleeting glimpse of it
through the fog: but we have to leave the service, and go back to our daily
pursuits, while the saints in heaven continue uninterrupted in the rest of
God. We on earth walk into and out of
this one eternal service every week. It
is doubtless true that the Second Coming of Christ will not take place until
the elect are all gathered into God’s Kingdom, but that is not what Eschaton
means.
·
Covenantal Objectivity is
too complicated a concept to address or attempt to summarize here. We comment.
There can be little disagreement that God has addressed His world in a
series of Covenants. There is
considerable dispute about the existence of an Adamic Covenant; yet, since
everything from Noah onward is Covenant centered, we don’t see how such objections
can stand. The Covenantal[4] theme of the whole Bible
is so strong that we would be compelled to formulate an Adamic Covenant even if
the Bible had nothing to say about the matter.
The Covenants obviously unfold in historic sequence, but there is considerable
dispute about how and why they unfold: hence a-millennialism,
pan-millennialism, pre-millennialism, Dispensationalism, and the like. The controversy surrounding Covenantal
Objectivity involves who may be considered a child of the Covenant, and why. This sounds a good deal like the differences
between Calvinists and Lutherans over issues like atonement, election,
predestination, redemption, salvation, sovereignty, and the like. We in part oppose this idea of Covenantal
Objectivity.[5] Suffice it to say that we believe that Christ
died for the whole Universe of sinners, and not just for the elect. We also claim that this does no damage
whatsoever to God’s absolute sovereignty.
Moreover, a completely distinct, newer view is arising that views Covenants
primarily as national, and not personal in force.[6] The idea that some supposed Christians
eventually fall away and are lost is the standard Presbyterian and Reformed
view as expressed by the P in TULIP.
There is no idea of “Once saved, always saved” in TULIP theology. We openly claim that Christians can and do
lose their salvation.[7] We deny that this is the correct
understanding of election or predestination.
Nevertheless, many of the observations concerning Covenant Objectivity
appear to be spot on: they broaden our understanding and provide much grist for
thought
·
Baptism regenerates. We comment.
We agree in part that baptism certainly regenerates; but not by water,
by the sign, or by the authority of a human priest. Baptism regenerates only because God the
Father is pleased to bestow the Holy Ghost[8] whenever and however He
wishes in accordance with the prayer of Christ.
We apply water in accordance with God’s promises in the hope and prayer
for the gift and indwelling of the Holy Ghost.
Nevertheless, neither Christ nor the Holy Ghost operate at the pleasure
of human bidding, so our understanding of baptism must remain a profound
mystery: we do not believe in magic. In
general we agree that most, if not all, of what is claimed for Baptismal Regeneration
is well stated.[9]
·
Small children, even
infants, are received at Communion. We
comment. We agree that paedocommunion is the historic
view of the Church. The evidence for
this is so overwhelming that it cannot be a distinctive of Federal Vision Theology. It might be considered a distinctive of the
Orthodox Church.
·
Biblical interpretation is
more art than method: it has no fixed method.
At best we compare Scripture with Scripture, considering also history,
and other realities. Since Scripture
itself is so broad and deep, it is impossible to reduce interpretation to a
fixed set of methodical rules. We
comment. One side of the Biblical Theology
and Typology argument maintains that God is only known mediately through
Creation and the Bible among Protestants, through the Magisterium and Vicarage
of the Papacy among Roman Catholics, or through Holy Tradition, etc. among
Orthodox.[10] Certainly God is known mediately through
Creation and the Bible, who could disagree with that. We do not deny that there may be other means
to the mediate knowledge of God. On the
other hand, we believe that the real issue is the claim that there is also
immediate access to the knowledge of God.
Specifically, “The Holy Spirit bears witness with our spirit.”[11] We agree that the immediate access to the
knowledge of God though the gift of the Holy Ghost is the norm of Christian
life for all Christians. If
interpretation as “an intuitive art” means man centered artistic conception,
the idea is heretical. On the other
hand, if interpretation as “an intuitive art” means that God has always addressed
some men in Bath Kol, and now the Holy Ghost is given universally to all
believers, but with varieties of gifts, we agree. Whenever the Holy Ghost’s gifts extend to the
interpretation of Scripture, we call this Bath Kol.[12] We have this caveat, that Scripture neither
be approached as a collection of facts, nor as simply a great story, but rather
as the written covenant of an infinite relationship, God’s relationship with
man. Typological or iconographic
presentations are a prominent and vital part of this relationship.[13]
·
“What matters is that we confess that
our salvation is all of Christ, and not from us.” We comment. This is true enough, but it misrepresents and
oversimplifies the problem of imputation.
This makes it difficult to summarize the distinctive Federal Vision stance. It is difficult to disagree with the “double imputation of our sins
to Jesus and His glory to us.” We agree
that it seems ludicrous to press the active obedience of Christ’s life to
details of specific miracles. However, John
14:12 does speak of doing even greater works: which of these can exist apart
from the general and universal goodness of the active obedience of Christ. Peter may not have changed water into wine,
but he, by the power of Christ within him, certainly did perform many
prodigious miracles. Christ is more than
an example of perfect humanity; He is the express power of perfect
humanity. In the mystery of union with
Him, we are being made into perfect men.
It is in His hypostasis that we are changed. We have to say that this is more relational
than imputational. “Christ became man,
so that man could become god:” so we agree with the idea of partaking in
Christ’s resurrection and glorification in addition to being legally justified. This does involve imputation; but it also
involves expiation, we hope for the day when we will finally be sinless; it
involves healing from the damage done by our sin both to ourselves and the harm
done to others; and when and if the necessary gifts are present, the ability to
perform miracles. Whether or not some of
these gifts have ceased is a topic for another discussion. Nevertheless, there appears to be wide
divergence of opinion over how imputation is applied. For example, is imputation directly and
specifically to me on a one-for-one basis.
Or is Christ’s blood and righteousness imputed to the whole world, as a
great festal table from which I am free to partake, yet I must partake. Or is the table set in such a way that is
appears to be available for all to partake, but only the elect do.[14]
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Vision
[2] We
sinfully abandoned the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, because of the crushing
financial pressures: which was and is the failure to trust God for our support
and falling under the condemnation of Matthew 13:7, 22. The abandoning of Calvinism as a theology is more
complicated. In the first place, we are
not experts on Calvin. We have some
understanding of TULIP. However, TULIP
is an overgeneralized and oversimplified summary of the Synod at Dordrecht
(there are several variant spellings), which is in turn derived from Calvin,
but is not the same as Calvin. We want
to avoid putting words into Calvin’s mouth, or adding ideas to Dordrecht. To simplify the discussion we reject the L in
TULIP, not because we know it to be untrue, but because the details of
atonement are so far hidden within the mysteries of God that we commit the sin
of trespass by even attempting to go there.
Moreover, we reject the idea of being classified as four point
Calvinists, or any other such monstrosity.
We err greatly, if we are tempted to wander off, down such roads.
[3]
Primary within these relationships is the profound philosophical discussion of
the “one and many
problem” which is too detailed to discuss here.
Those who wish to follow this trail in detail are invited to examine
both Van Til and Rushdoony: we love them both.
[4] A
profound investigation of Covenant is found in Kline, Meredith G., The
Structure of Biblical Authority (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1972: 183
pages), and his other writings. These
demonstrations of Covenant in the Bible go a long way to overthrow the
Documentary Hypothesis and other modern heresies. The reality of contemporary Christianity is
such that liberalism, modernism, Neo-Orthodoxy and the like have so infiltrated
Orthodox, Protestant, and Roman Catholic churches and educational institutions
that we shall have to keep a sharp eye out to perceive if we are truly discussing
Orthodox, Protestant, and Roman Catholic issues; or if we are being led astray
by an evil traitor and a sower of discord among the brethren. We are baffled by the behavior that admits
obvious traitors to the Communion, yet excludes sincere seekers and locks them
outside. This is not unlike straining
out a gnat and swallowing a camel.
[5] It
sounds a lot like the discussion of Federal versus Seminal Headship. We reject the idea of Federal Headship. It seems to us that Seminal Headship is the
classical view of The Church. However,
Seminal Headship, that sin is inherited from Adam, is easily distorted into
some genetic disposition to sin: sin is seen as a heritability issue like blond
hair and blue eyes. We believe that the
classical view of The Church, as expressed at Carthage (397) and Ephesus (431)
is that sin is inherited from Adam because we actively participated in
Adam. This view necessitates the view that
righteousness is inherited from Christ because we actively participate in
Christ, which is of course, an apt description of the miraculous work of the
Holy Ghost beginning in baptism: exclusively a work of grace, participated in
by faith, love, and works. This view
also seems to necessitate that Christ received no genetic material from either
Joseph or Mary, but His humanity is a new creation. In any case, Christ most certainly did not
participate in Adam’s sin, while Mary most certainly did participate in that
sin. Beyond this we are again in danger
of the sin of trespassing into God’s hidden mysteries.
[6] The
New Perspectives on Paul (NPP) movement perhaps discovered
first by E. P. Sanders. A discussion of
this issue is found in Moo, Douglas J., The Epistle to the Romans,
NICNT (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1996: 1012 pages). Moo is not completely supportive of this
view. We are very sympathetic to NPP
ideas, without being completely committed to every facet of them: it causes us
to see Scripture afresh, and it enriches our understanding. For example, the environment and events of
the Reformation, distort our view of Romans.
While this was germane in the sixteenth century it does not accurately
express the message of Romans in the first through fifteenth centuries, and
does not present the full orbed perspective necessary for Christianity today. In particular, the Reformation view of Romans
distorts our view of evangelism with an excessive emphasis on sin, and ignores
the fact that Romans was written for believers, not for unbelievers. Correct exegesis of Scripture must have
meaning for its first hearers and for all eternity, not just for a century or
two. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Perspective_on_Paul
[7]
Again, we are drawing very close to God’s hidden mysteries. We do not know what God will do. We only see things from our earthly
perspective. Calvinists tend to describe
this falling away in terms of their theological construct, while other
Christians use different terms. We do
not know what God will do with those who appear to have fallen away. We only know that God is good and
merciful. We have no real right to press
the words of John and others into some sort of reductio ad absurdum (1 John
2:19).
[8] We
prefer the term Ghost to Spirit, not because there is any fundamental
difference in meaning, but because Ghost emphasizes that the Third Person of
the Trinity is a Person, not a force or an influence. He is not a gentle breeze, He is Very God.
[9] …
in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Vision under the heading, Baptism.
[10]
This is not intended as an exhaustive examination of the various positions, but
only to show than most bodies have some view of mediate knowledge of God, and
there are many variations on that idea.
[11]
Romans 8:16, this calls into question the whole nature of revelation and
inspiration. The Jews believe, as do we,
in Bath Kol, secondary revelation and inspiration. Consequently, I must confess that every idea
I have ever had either comes from demons or from God. If I have a good engineering design idea, it
originated from God’s common grace, and I should give all the glory to God for
it. Herod failed to glorify God and was
put to death for his insult (Act 12:23).
If I have an insight into Scripture, God gave it to me, it is the result
of God’s spiritual gifts in action, and I had better glorify God for it. But I cannot simply have the gift of
Prophetic Utterance which is reserved for God’s chosen Apostles and Prophets.
[12] http://swantec.blogspot.com/2013/09/which-bible-7.html
and http://swantec.blogspot.com/2013/09/which-bible-8.html
[13]
For example the whole tabernacle design is said to be modeled after the
heavenly reality that Moses saw at Sinai.
In Revelation we see the reality of this model or icon unfolded. In Hebrews we hear it explained as the better
things of God, culminating in the blood of the New Covenant. Can there be any doubt that the whole of
Leviticus is a type of the Crucifixion of Christ? On the other hand, the presence of the
Shekinah is no type; it is the reality of the eternal Glorious presence of God
made visible. Here is objective rational
proof enough for the existence of God, for millions of people observed this
Shekinah speaking with Moses and the Prophets, resident in the tabernacle and
temple over a period of roughly eight hundred sixty years.
[14]
Without overgeneralizing, these differences pertaining to imputation, approach
some of the core differences between Calvinistic and Lutheran theology. To be fair, this is very complicated.
No comments:
Post a Comment