Monday, May 16, 2011

Reforming Evangelicals

What I intend to do with this blog is suggested by the blog subtitle at the top of the blog page, viz., "explore limits". Both words are important. Ultimately our limits should be truth. Which is to say, if we find ourselves limited to, or limited by something which is less than the truth, then we should "explore" how to get beyond that limitation. "Exploration" has the connotation of journey & discovery -- something vividly captured and expressed in the pilgrim imagery of some of Christianity's most gifted writers, i.e. John Bunyan, C.S. Lewis, et. al.

Most of us like our theology nice and fixed. Thus why the human tendency to create Creeds, Confessions, doctrinal statements, etc. There are those who refuse to create such documents. They like to offer such boasts as "No Creed but Christ", and the like. But (as any careful observer can see) such people have a theology which is just as fixed and exclusive as those groups with formal documents. So, whether formally stated or not the possibility of a fortress mentality is very real all the same.

I have spent a number of years in one theological fortress or another, or another, and have reached a place in my life where theological exploration is more possible than ever. This is not to say I'm with the "post-modernists" in their acquiescence to relativism. I do think there is a truth to every matter. But, that truth isn't always what or where we would like it to be.


Theologian Michael Bauman on his blog "A Pilgrm's Way" well-expresses this theological journey of exploration, in contrast with the fortress theology of many Christians.


Fortress Theology and the Mirage of Paradox
...I admire those theologians who, once they reach a dead end, back up the bus and try another route. That theologian may find himself in a dead end once again, or he may find the one route that leads out of the maze. That route does exist. God, at any rate, seems to have found it. While it may be that we never will, we ought to con­tinue to try. Some theologians, however, being either unable or unwilling to pursue their quarry any further, become entrenched in paradox.

They learn to tolerate un­remedied paradox when unremedied paradox should be shunned. Perhaps they do so because to them the prospect of going back (perhaps even to the beginning) is too unsettling and too daunting. Rather than striking out in a new direction, or rather than pioneering through uncharted territories in search of the doctrinal Northwest pas­sage,3 they hunker down and plant settlements in comfortable valleys, having de­cided at last that they will never reach the sea, or even continue to try.

They have forgotten that, in this case, it is better to travel hopefully and never to arrive than to settle prema­turely. To that extent, then, their theological settlements are a failure of nerve. Fa­tigue and uncertainty have made it seem more desirable to plant roots than to look around one more doctrinal bend or to climb up and peer over one more theological hill. The spirit of pioneering thus gives way to the spirit of dogmatism.

Once a pioneer becomes a settler, he starts to build fences. Fences are soon replaced by walls and walls by forts. The pilgrimage has become a settlement, and those within the walls become suspicious of those without. Outsiders think differently, talk differently, act differently. To justify their suspicions, settlement theologians begin to think that they belong in doctrinal fortresses. They develop what I call the “Ebenezer doctrine.” “Was it not the map of God — our Bibles — that led us here?" they ask. In one sense, of course, they are right. The Bible did, in fact, lead them this far. But not the Bible only.

Their misreading of it is what led them into the valley of paradox. Their lack of strength and their insecurity led them to settle there and to build a fort. In despair of ever finding their way to the sea, and discouraged by the prospect of going back, they traded their theological tents for creedal tenements and their doctrinal backpacks for dogmatic bungalows. Travelling mercies were ex­changed for staying mercies. That is because Fortress Theologians interpret the intellectual security they have erected for themselves as the blessing of God. The per­ceived blessing of God becomes to them the perceived will of God. “Hitherto the Lord has led us” becomes not only their reason for staying, but also for fighting.

They become the victims of a beseiged mentality nurtured on autointoxication. Those who settle else­where, or those who do not settle at all, are perceived to militate against the truth of God. They must be stopped, the fortress dwellers believe. If the settlers had their way, none of us would reach the golden sea. Only there, on that distant shore, should we plant our flag, with an entire conti­nent of theological exploration behind us and the ocean of infinity throwing waves at our feet. Only after we've seen the sun setting beyond a watery horizon, only after we've awaken to the smell of salt air and the sight and sound of sea otters playing on wet rocks, can we cease our theological quest. Lewis and Clark did not gain fame for quitting in St. Louis. Columbus did not turn back at the Canary Islands. Theologians who settle in the valley of paradox do not deserve acclaim.

Accordingly, I shall mostly write more about ideas which are held by a minority of orthodox and evangelical Christians than about ideas which have predominance. Sometimes these will be things which are old, and are being ignored by the contemporary Church. And, sometimes these will be new (or, seemingly new) ideas which the Church is having some difficulty accepting. Thus, the perspectives "ancient" and "future" (also referenced in the subtitle of the blog itself) are informing concepts to the theme of this blog, just as the concepts of "exploration" and "limits" mentioned earlier. All of these concepts find their pertinance in the process of "Reforming" (thus the title of this post --and the blog itself).

One of the banner cries of the Protestant Reformation was "Always Reforming". I take that seriously. Some of my readers will say too far. We shall see.

46 comments:

  1. Excellent first article to your blog Charlie. Hopefully Reformed people will not find this to be offensive, but be encouraged by it; as we all are prone to following mentor's of the past, and not seeing scripture afresh. We condemn others for following blindly their doctrines, while we do the same. It is a difficult fine line to walk on to follow great teachers and creeds of the past, yet think for ourselves, and yet not be so bold as to jump where no man has gone before. It's a difficult task for Christians who HAVE matured (maturing..... somewhat).

    ReplyDelete
  2. Jerry, thanks for the kind word, and summary of the tension. As you know (and have often argued yourself) every tradition has a presupposition(s) with which they view the Bible and theology. In many ways this can be helpful, because it provides a kind of orientation of where other sincere interpreters have gone. But, it can also be a blinder, or a filter, or even worse a shaper of meaning.

    This brings us back to truth. If John Calvin was wrong about a given matter, and Thomas Aquinas were right about the matter, non_Catholics shouldn't side with Calvin out of prejudice. They should side with truth and say, 'Aquinas got this one right'. I don't have any particular matter in mind in this example, only to say that one's own heroes sometimes err, and those we do not favor generally sometimes find the truth.

    I also don't have any theological persuasion in mind as target of this blog. Rather, I want to post interesting things which might bother one persuasion one time, and the opposite persuasion the next time. And, the third time it might ruffle all feathers, thus uniting them all against me. I won't do much posting of topics which all orthodox evangelicals agree upon, because this blog is to "reform evangelicals", not to reform those altogether outside of that universe.

    ReplyDelete
  3. So...I guess I'm to be looking foward to being offended? :D

    I've heard of an "ancient-future" movement in some circles. (I'll try to read up on it...) Is this the perspective(s)with which you are identifying?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Steve, I sometimes appropriate terms for my own purposes which might be used by others (for other reasons). To be as clear as I can, I want to listen to as many voices in the Church that I can to see which have something helpful to say. The Protestant Reformation was a highwater time for prodigious theological reflection, as was the time of the Patristics before. But, I operate under the assumption that those men were made out of the same biological stuff we are (therefore they didn't have any native intelligence which is not also now manifest in humanity) and of course the same Holy Spirit and the same Bible are still with us.

    We stand on their shoulders, but we don't rest on their laurels. So, I take it as axiomatic that they were right about some things, and wrong about others. One need not be exposed to Luther very long to get the impression one is dealing with pre-modern superstitious man. We can forgive him for that, but need to be mindful of that influence in his work.

    I am disturbed that moderns and post-moderns wish to simply leave these eras behind as utterly antiquated. I am disturbed for the reasons which I said, they were reading the same Bible, and illuminated by the same Holy Spirit.

    I am also concerned (perhaps not equally so, but concerned nonetheless) that many Reformed people sometimes get amnesia when it comes to the Reformation principle "Semper Reformanda" aka., always reforming. "They say"... they affirm that principle. But, when it comes down to it, the classic confessions of the 16th & 17th centuries (as a practical matter) function as a Protestant "Magisterium". Thus, there exists a risk that a confession can turn from being a product of biblical exegesis to being a lens from which to view biblical exegesis. It can even (like the Catholic Magisterium) become de facto equal with Scripture.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I like that statement Charlie: "there exists a risk that a confession can turn from being a product of biblical exegesis to being a lens from which to view biblical exegesis."

    So true!

    ReplyDelete
  6. ...continuing my thoughts from the post: "A Right Method of Thinking" from Jerry DeHaven's blog Theological Thinking:

    In my blog post "Reforming Evangelicals" above I quote a theologian who says we shouldn't settle for "unresolved paradox". We might be tempted to think this is pride -- in that we think that we humans have a right to know everything. And thus, the counter would be we would be more properly in our place (of humility) if we recognize there are mysteries (and therefore paradoxes should be expected).

    But on the other hand, it just occurred to me that "unresolved paradox" might be another way to phrase the concept: cognitive dissonance. Science, philosophy, logic and psychology have taught us over time that cognitive dissonance is an incorrect way of thinking. And, a large number of the accolytes of those disciplines might tell us that cognitive dissonance is an evolutionary development to help us with survival.

    But, Christian theists believe that every good and perfect gift comes down from the Father of the Heavenly Lights. And so, we think and believe that cognitive dissonance is no random mutation, but indeed a gift of God. Jesus said, you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free. Therefore, if at least that much is true itself, then we shouldn't fear the truth at all, even if it uncomfortably upsets our agenda.

    ReplyDelete
  7. So for you truth really is relative. Thou dost protest too much.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The point you're missing is that the Reformed standards have been proved to have their "most certain warrant" in Holy Scripture. Unless and until you can convince the majority of the Reformed churches that the standards have erred then the standards are normative and dogmatic theology to which you must adhere if you wish to be seriously considered as "Reformed". Many "Reformed" denominations now ordain homosexuals and other such nonsense. You're on the same road.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The quote you posted above shows that you view reason as normative above Scripture. Scripture, not reason, is THE final authority and it is precisely because the creeds, confessions and Reformed standards are drawn from a solid and systematic exegesis of Scripture that they are authoritative and binding is so much as they are faithful to Scripture.

    Reason, like every other human faculty, has been tainted by original sin. In fact, the human nature has been totally corrupted to the point that the divine image and likeness is beyond recognition. (Romans 1:18-32; Romans 3:9-23).

    Charlie

    ReplyDelete
  10. My view of the church always reforming is different from yours. Instead of jettisoning the Pauline epistles as the New Perspectives on Paul do, I view the church always reforming as confronting heresiarchs and their heresies as a function of ongoing Reformation. Just as the original Reformers confronted Papist heresies and stood for the authority of Holy Scripture above human tradition and reason, so the church always reforming today must confront each new attack on the Gospel and the authority of Scripture with the propositional truths revealed in logical and rational form in Scripture.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Charlie J. Ray said...
    'So for you truth really is relative.'

    CEH: Nope. Don't know why you would say that. Truth is true. True truth as Francis Schaeffer would say.

    Charlie J. Ray said...
    'Thou dost protest too much.'

    CEH: There are plenty of blogs and websites which are mere echoes. I'm doing something different than that, here.

    Charlie J. Ray said...
    'The point you're missing is that the Reformed standards have been proved to have their "most certain warrant" in Holy Scripture. Unless and until you can convince the majority of the Reformed churches that the standards have erred then the standards are normative and dogmatic theology to which you must adhere if you wish to be seriously considered as "Reformed".'

    CEH: The problem that I'm highlighting in this thread is "the ReformED" are just that. Static. Sedentary. Incurious. This is why I am saying I am reformING.

    Perhaps a more helpful word as a deferral to history would be "reformational". This would encompass what the Protestant Reformers did without getting ensnared in a cult of antiquity worship, like so many do.

    Confessions are fine for what they are, which is an apologetical snapshot at a moment in time. I say, "apologetical" because they are more than merely a pure statement of what the bible teaches. They are couched so as to be rhetorically antithetical to the issues of the day with which they disagree.

    Confessionalism (as distinguished from confessions) can be its own trap grinding theological exploration to a standstill to settle for romantically deferring to the theology of yore.

    Charlie J. Ray said...
    'The quote you posted above shows that you view reason as normative above Scripture. Scripture, not reason, is THE final authority and it is precisely because the creeds, confessions and Reformed standards are drawn from a solid and systematic exegesis of Scripture that they are authoritative and binding is so much as they are faithful to Scripture.'

    CEH: Well, except that those who put the confessions together "reasoned" from the Scriptures to do so, viz.,'..by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture' (WCF 1.6). Good and necessary are cognates for classic syllogistic informal logic commonly termed valid and sound in the construction of Informal arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Perhaps it would be helpful, Charlie, if you could give a specific example of "Confessionalism...grinding theological exploration to a standstill."

    Also, perhaps you could provide a doctrine from a specific confession which you feel to be in error.

    I adhere to the London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689. (So obviously, I disagree with the WCF in regards to baptism.) Yet, even within my own Confession I experience different levels of certainty. For instance, I find chapter 8 ("of Christ The Mediator") to be a settled truth--beyond question, thoroughly biblical. But 26:4 reads, "the Pope of Rome...is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition..."

    Personally, the confidence I have in chapter 8; I do not have in 26:4. The difference is, I see 8 as undeniably biblical; and 26:4 as speculative. (The Pope is not explicitly, and perhaps not even implicitly, mentioned in scripture.)

    Thus it seems, we should always view our confession, whichever it may be, through the lens of scripture and not the other way around. In other words, the confession is authoritative only in so far as it faithfully or accurately explicates biblical truth. The Bible's authority is absolute, the confession's authority is derivative.

    ReplyDelete
  13. @Steve Griffin

    Of course you don't believe the pope is an antichrist or that Roman Catholics are lost. The reason is obvious. You don't actually believe the London Baptist Confession of Faith either. If papists are "saved" then for you doctrinal statements are all equally valid and therefore Arminians, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and various other false religions are ways to God. The truth, however, is that there is only ONE Gospel. Rome ain't it.

    I might add that Arminianism is simply another false religion that teaches that man saves himself by his own work of faith. Free will is a lie from hell.

    Semi-Arminian neo-Calvinists are all warm and cosy with ecumenicalism because of the liberal doctrines of common grace and the free offer and the alleged divine favor towards the reprobate. Ever wonder why God damns eternally the reprobates He "loves" and "favors"? See Romans 9:11-13.

    Charlie

    ReplyDelete
  14. Charles, you would do well to learn a bit more logic. You cannot assert irrational and inconsistent positions with a straight face, surely?

    Scripture itself is absolutely logical, consistent, coherent, and congruent with itself. In fact, the reason confessions of faith can be formulated from Scripture is that Scripture itself IS truth. It is divine revelation and absolutely binding. Thus for you to assert that the confessions are untrustworthy is to deny sola Scriptura. Your view is actually the Anabaptist view where all is open to revision by individuals. The radical reformers took the same view that you take.

    The magisterial Reformers, however, did not throw out the creeds because they realized that these "static" credos or "I believe" statements were thoroughly Scriptural and were authoritative and normative.

    You, on the other hand, assert solo Scriptura where you get to reinvent whatever doctrine you wish. What's next, the "static" doctrine of the Trinity? Or maybe you're going to confirm that homosexuals are born that way as a gift of God?

    Basically, your complaint that confessional theology is "static" is just your excuse for revisionism, relativism, and paradox. Cornelius Van Til's legacy is liberalism.

    Don't expect me to fall for your line of bullshit:)

    And by the way, I have a master of divinity from Asbury and a bachelor's degree from Southeastern College/University, both Arminian schools. I know Arminianism from the inside.

    I'm a classical Calvinist who rejects the three points of common grace, the free offer of the Gospel, and the idea that God favors the reprobate.

    My confession of faith is mainly the Anglican Formularies: The 39 Articles of Religion, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal. I also adhere to the Westminster Standards and the Three Forms of Unity.

    I view the pope as an antichrist and the Roman Catholic Church as a false religion and a synagogue of satan.

    Charlie

    ReplyDelete
  15. >>>>Charlie J. Ray said...
    'The quote you posted above shows that you view reason as normative above Scripture. Scripture, not reason, is THE final authority and it is precisely because the creeds, confessions and Reformed standards are drawn from a solid and systematic exegesis of Scripture that they are authoritative and binding is so much as they are faithful to Scripture.'

    CEH: Well, except that those who put the confessions together "reasoned" from the Scriptures to do so, viz.,'..by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture' (WCF 1.6). Good and necessary are cognates for classic syllogistic informal logic commonly termed valid and sound in the construction of Informal arguments.
    <<<

    Yes, and the last time I checked individualism is less trustworthy than the collective thinking of the churches since the first century and especially in the Reformation. Your view is that "informal arguments" trump the creeds and confessions which are well thought out exegesis of the Scriptures and have been accepted by the churches since the Reformation. Of course, the creeds and confessions are fallible while Scripture is infallible. But you are even MORE fallible since you're simply another individual.

    As I said earlier, your so-called "reformING" is just an excuse for radical reformation and is essentially Anabaptist not Reformed.

    The last time I checked Scripture is "static". The Scriptures are not subject to revision or "reformING". So if you object to "static" interpretations of a "static" book, you are in essence criticizing the once for all revelation of God in Holy Writings.

    Charlie

    Charlie

    ReplyDelete
  16. I forgot to mention that I follow the apologetics method of Gordon H. Clark and Scripturalism.

    God's Hammer

    The Trinity Foundation

    ReplyDelete
  17. If you think Luther was pre-modern and superstitious, you probably have the same opinion of Scripture:) Why lie about being a relativist and a postmodernist, Charles???

    Please.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Charlie J. Ray,
    My comment was intended for Charles Harris [who I know as Charlie]. Sorry for the confusion. But since you replied to me I shall reply to you.

    You write: "Of course you don't believe the pope is an antichrist or that Roman Catholics are lost. The reason is obvious. You don't actually believe the London Baptist Confession of Faith either..."

    Why did you change the wording of my post and of the confession? Neither my post nor the confession reads "AN antichrist." My post and the confession reads "THAT antichrist." It seems to me that you altered the words of my post and the confession because you are either sloppy or disingenuous. And I strongly suspect you may be both.

    Please present from my post anything remotely similar to: “I don’t believe the Pope is an antichrist.” If you cannot produce such a statement from my post (and you cannot), then why do you make such an accusation? This is what is called a “straw man” fallacy.

    (I expect better than fallacious argumentation coming from one who presumes to tell others, “you would do well to learn a bit more logic.” You would do well, Charlie J. Ray, to have a bit more intellectual integrity than to deceitfully or lazily misrepresent those with whom you disagree.)

    What did I actually write? I did not speak of belief and disbelief, but of “levels of certainty.” By God’s grace I pray that I would be willing to suffer for the truth of Christ the Mediator [chpt. 8].

    I do not say that I would be, or should be, willing to suffer for the idea that the Pope is “THAT antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition” [26:4]. I am more certain that Jesus is the Mediator than I am that the Pope is “THAT antichrist.”

    And what is the more significant, salvific truth, Charlie J. Ray? Can a man be saved without believing Jesus is the Mediator? Can a man be saved who denies Jesus is the Mediator? Can a man be saved who’s never heard of the Pope and therefore hasn’t a clue as to whether or not the Pope is “THAT antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition.”

    I’m asking you, Charlie J. Ray: Can a man who neither affirms nor denies that the Pope is “THAT antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition,” be saved? Does salvation in any sense depend upon one’s position on the Pope’s being “THAT antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition”?

    ReplyDelete
  19. @Charlie J. Ray,
    Furthermore, where in scripture do we find the truth that “an antichrist” is synonymous to, or is the same person/entity as “that man of sin” and “son of perdition”? Please provide chapter and verse from the actual text of sacred scripture, which warrants conflating these terms. (I’m not in the least interested in your inferences or opinions. I would like chapter and verse, expressly justifying such conflation.)

    Neither my post nor the confession uses the phrase, “an antichrist;” but the wording is found in the New Testament. It is found in one--and only one--verse: “For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist” (2John 7).

    Thus we find that according to scripture, “an antichrist” is a deceiver who denies Jesus Christ came in the flesh. (The Pope is not explicitly nor implicitly mentioned.) Now, is it you opinion that the Pope denies the Incarnation? Either way, this is simply your opinion.

    To go even further, the terms “antichrist” and “antichrists” appear in only one other book: 1 John. [Again, no mention of the Pope, and no conflation with the Pauline expressions “man of sin” or “son of perdition.”] What does 1John say of antichrist/antichrists?

    “Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour…Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son…and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world” (1John 2:18,22;4:3)

    Once again, I ask you Charlie J. Ray, is it your opinion that the Pope denies that “Jesus is the Christ” or the Incarnation? Either way, this is only your opinion.

    You claim to adhere to sola scriptura. So, please show from the Bible itself that “antichrist(s)” is to be conflated with Paul’s “man of sin” and “son of perdition.” And then, from the actual text of scripture, please show how this conflation of terms, entities, or persons corresponds to the Pope.

    The rest of your post, Charlie J. Ray, is nothing more than a rant of ignorance and presumption as to what I believe. In the future, please fight the temptation, born of arrogance, to presume to tell me of my own position. I will gladly inform you of my beliefs, but kindly refrain from presuming to enlighten me as to content of my own mind.

    ReplyDelete
  20. @Griffin, the fact that every pope since the doctrine of papal supremacy was made official doctrine has claimed to be THE vicar of Christ on earth and the head of the "Catholic" church is proof enough that these verses are legitimately applied to such heresy.

    Anyone with any knowledge of the Reformation AND Scripture would know this. But fools who think they are beyond the authority of Scripture are stupid enough to try and reinvent Christianity. Such thinking is merely liberalism and relativism.

    I guess 2 + 2 = 4 is relative for you as well? Maybe that statement is too "static" for you? Truth keeps moving around like moving the goal posts?

    Charlie

    ReplyDelete
  21. Griffin, show me where Scripture is relative and the church has no authority to interpret Scripture? Where is your chapter and verse for your line of bullshit?

    By the way, I have a master of divinity. Degrees are nothing. You'll have to substantiate your illogical arguments through logic. IF you can.

    Do you think theology is any less logical than the other sciences? Please.

    This blog is nothing more than an ignorant rant against the authority of Scripture and the secondary authority of the confessional standards. What makes your hyper individualism more authoritative than the confessions? Chapter and verse, please?

    Arguments based on non sequiturs are silly at best, Griffin.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Griffin, obviously the confession applies to the pope during the writing of the confession. It clearly implies that ALL of the popes are "that man of sin." But you obviously wish to play word games rather than face the fact that anyone who claims to be THE vicar of Christ on earth IS an antichrist. That especially applies to Rome.

    1 John 4:1-4

    I believe that every pope since the Reformation has been "that man of sin" since it is obviously unscriptural for any man to usurp the place of Christ and Christ alone.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Anyone who is a Roman Catholic is LOST. If you don't believe this then you're basically a liberal.

    ReplyDelete
  24. It is my opinion that Rome teaches another Christ and another Gospel. Galatians 1:6-9; Galatians 2:17; Galatians 3:10; 2 Corinthians 11:3-4. Therefore the pope does not believe in the Christ who is revealed in Scripture. Instead Rome believes in Jesus they have altered through the traditions of men added to Scripture.

    For Rome the final authority is not Scripture but their own traditions. Rome lords it over Scripture.

    As I said, Griffin, you are a papist sympathizer and therefore a lost heretic. Semi-Arminians and Arminians have more in common with Rome than with Scripture or with Geneva or Canterbury (during the English Reformation).

    May God grant you the grace to believe the one Gospel...

    Charlie

    ReplyDelete
  25. >>>CEH: There are plenty of blogs and websites which are mere echoes. I'm doing something different than that, here.<<<

    Odd that you keep echoing modernists, post modernists, and liberals. Maybe you'll reinvent the wheel, too?

    I find it amusing when idiots pretend to have some gnostic insight that the "dogmatics" have overlooked. Relativists are dogmatically relativistic. The question is whose view is most consistent with Scripture, not who can be the most innovative and "new". Out with the old and in with the new. What else is new for you? Gay marriage? Egalitarianism in gender relations? How about transgenderism? You get to redefine your physical gender by surgery?

    Truth in theological matters is determined by Scripture and Scripture alone.

    Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. (John 17:17 ESV)

    ReplyDelete
  26. Charlie J. Ray,
    Your rhetoric is so infantile that your posts appear cartoonish. I've rarely read such mindless drivel. Your posts to me have absolutely no correlation to what I have actually written. Truly, you are highly skilled in the art of missing the point entirely.

    You ask: "I guess 2 + 2 = 4 is relative for you as well?"

    Well, Charlie J. Ray, I don't believe any truth to be relative. So why do you use the words "as well"? This is a form of the logical fallacy known as "loaded question."

    I will reply to your loaded question with one of my own. Okay? Charlie J. Ray, Have you always been homosexual? (See how fun loaded questions are? Fun, perhaps but also pointless.) Perhaps if I respond to your loaded questions with my own loaded questions, you will learn?

    You write: "Griffin, show me where Scripture is relative and the church has no authority to interpret Scripture? Where is your chapter and verse for your line of bullshit?"

    I deny that scripture is relative and I affirm that the church is the "pillar and ground of the truth" (1Tim 3:15). Charlie J. Ray, just because your posts are vicious and vulgar doesn't make them true or even coherent.

    You remark: "By the way, I have a master of divinity. Degrees are nothing. You'll have to substantiate your illogical arguments through logic. IF you can."

    If degrees are nothing, why do you have a master's and why do you mention it? Also, how does one "substantiate" an "illogical argument" by or "through logic"? Isn't it impossible to logically substantiate illogical argumentation?

    You query: "Do you think theology is any less logical than the other sciences?"

    No.

    You assert: "Arguments based on non sequiturs are silly at best, Griffin."

    You'll get no argument from me on this point, Charlie J. Ray. The problem is this: Nearly every post of yours, in their entirety, are non sequiturs; sprinkled with red herrings, straw men, and ad hominems--hardly worthy of a self proclaimed Clarkian.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Griffin, when did you stop beating your mother?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Griffin, your ignorance of basic reasons for the Protestant Reformation and WHY the confessions unanimously condemned the pope of their day as "antichrist" is simply amazing.

    Maybe you think the Reformers were all ignorant, pre-scientific, morons?

    Please.

    I rather like punching holes in stupid arguments like yours. Luther didn't mince words and I don't either. Call it what you will:)

    So much for your fake tolerance.

    Relativists are the most intolerant folks I've ever debated. The one thing liberals can't stand is certainty about Biblical doctrine or theology and they are adamantly dogmatic and intolerant about it.

    As for non sequiturs, the purpose of this blog is one huge non sequitur. Simply because the confessions are fallible it does not follow that they are in actual error. In fact, the only reason modern versions of the WCF and the LBCF remove the pointed critiques of the pope and the Roman Catholic Church is ecumenical concerns, not the biblical basis for the statements made. Any elementary school child can read the verses noted and recognize that they can be justly applied to the pope and to Rome.

    I guess you're one of the idiots who thinks the Protestant Reformation is over while with a straight face claiming that you're "Reformed". Please.

    Charlie

    Charlie

    ReplyDelete
  29. Griffin, you're the one posting your D.Min. after your name:) A D.Min. is what? 25 hours? I'm impressed. D.Min. isn't even worthy of the title of "doctor".

    ReplyDelete
  30. Charlie J. Ray,
    Your case for the Pope(s) being antichrist are based upon little more than opinion and inference. As I told you repeatedly, I am not interested in your opinions or inferences.

    Perhaps the confession is correct to identify the Pope(s) as "THAT antichrist." But this identification is not explicit, or implicit, in scripture.

    You allege: "I believe that every pope since the Reformation has been 'that man of sin.'"

    Of course, there were very wicked, sinful Popes before the Reformation; so why only the Popes "since the Reformation"?

    You write: "It is my opinion that Rome teaches another Christ and another Gospel."

    Here again, I'm not interested in your opinion. That being said, I believe Rome indeed teaches a different gospel [in the theological sense of justification by faith alone], which is no Gospel at all (c.f. Gal 1:7).

    You allege: "As I said, Griffin, you are a papist sympathizer and therefore a lost heretic."

    This is nothing but a baseless and stupid accusation. I really don't see how I could care less about your assessment of my salvation."Who shall bring a charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies" (Rom 8:33).

    You write: "May God grant you the grace to believe the one Gospel..."

    He already has, Charlie J. Ray. Thanks be to God!

    ReplyDelete
  31. Griffin, in case the obvious has escaped you, it is merely your opinion that the Reformed Confessions are wrong when they call Rome a synagogue of satan and the pope the anti-Christ.

    Stupid you:)

    I'm not interested in your opinions. Unless you can refute the Protestant Reformers and the entire Protestant Reformation you're just an idiosyncratic and opinionated individual. The Confessions are based on the Scriptures and the condemnation of Rome was in like kind.

    Of course, you'll not give a straight answer on anything being the dissimulating liberal pretender you are:)

    Duck, dodge, and hide behind evasive maneuvers. So be it.

    I have absolutely nothing to hide and no one can use shame to change my views. You obviously think such silliness constitutes a rational argument on your part. Stupid you.

    Give me some substance or shut up, boy:)

    Go back to the plow. Baptists tend toward the Anabaptist views. What else is new?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Charlie J. Ray,

    A few questions and I'm bringing my part in this dialogue to a close.

    1) Do you believe the Bible is infallible? Is it possible for it to err?

    2)Do you believe church confessions are infallible? Is it possible for church confessions to err?

    3) Is the Christian's conscience bound by scripture alone? or Is the Christian's conscience bound by scripture and church confessions {and which confessions}?

    4)Is the Bible's authority absolute? Are church confessions absolutely authoritative or derivatively authoritative?

    5) Is scripture alone inspired or are confessions also inspired?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Griffin, and I might point out to you that your list of questions betrays you as an Anabaptist. The Reformed Confessions were understood to be authoritative statements of faith and systematic summaries of what the churches of the day and since believe the Scriptures teach.

    Confessions are there precisely to divide truth from error. Your view seems to be that Confessions are merely opinions to taken or left by whim.

    EVERYONE has an interpretation of Scripture. That is the privilege of the priesthood of believers. However, the balance is that the priesthood of believers is not merely individual but also collective and congregational. Baptists never get this because of the hyper-emphasis on individualism and congregationalism.

    The magisterial reformers developed confessions of faith and catechism for good reason. You seem to rejoice in denigrating those reasons.

    Basically, Baptists are not Reformed. Particular Baptists are still Baptists rather than true Calvinists.

    Why do you think Servetus was condemned as a heretic? Because the Trinity was optional?

    Charlie

    ReplyDelete
  34. Charlie J. Ray,
    As you have nothing meaningful to contribute to this conversation, this will be my last post to you.

    You write: "Luther didn't mince words and I don't either."

    You flatter yourself. You, Charlie J. Ray, are no Martin Luther. Luther didn't mince words but he also spoke truth. Thus far you've offered little more than ignorance, lies, and nonesense.

    Scripture exhorts me to not answer a fool according to his folly. And I now follow the sage advice which says: Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

    ReplyDelete
  35. The Christian's conscience is bound by Scripture alone. But since Scripture must be interpreted by both individuals and by churches, it stands that Scripture must be rightly interpreted. (2 Timothy 2:15). You seem to think that Scripture is a subjective inkblot test or something.

    Your argument has more in common with the idea that there is no creed but Christ than with Calvinism or the Protestant Reformation. Confessions do bind the conscience of the Christian insofar as those Confessions are faithful to Scripture.

    Which confessions? Well the better question is, "Which church?" Churches are more or less pure according to three standards: 1. Rightly preaching the Gospel, which presupposes a correct interpretation of Scripture. That would necessitate agreement on what the Gospel IS. Hence everyone has a confession of faith. Putting it in formal statements is conducive to distinguishing truth from error. 2. Rightly administering the two Gospel sacraments. Baptists fail here since ALL of the magisterial Reformers stood with the early church in baptizing infants as a sign of the covenant and a sign of regeneration. And 3. Church discipline. Since Baptists are so into individualism there is practically no discipline for doctrinal heresies whatsoever. Moralism ain't the Gospel. Lordship salvation is pelagianism repackaged.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Griffin, Scripture exhorts me to the same thing. Baptists just don't get it.

    Timothy George coined the term "magisterial" Reformers for a good reason. And George is a Baptist.

    This is my last post to you as well. When you figure out that Presbyterians and Anglicans exist get back to me.

    Until then I hope you are content in your Anabaptist and radical ideas.

    I for one refuse to compromise.

    Charlie

    ReplyDelete
  37. Different Reformed churches have different confessions. But there is a Reformed center that can be understood by reading the various confessions and standards in harmony. I adhere to the 39 Articles of Religion and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer as my primary confession of faith. Close behind that are the Westminster Standards and the Three Forms of Unity.

    I also like the Consensus of Tigerinus and the Formula Consensus Helvetica.

    The various Baptist confessions do not interest me. The LBCF is an adaptation of the WCF. The rest of the Baptist confessions are too brief to define doctrine in any coherent and comprehensive way.

    Charlie

    ReplyDelete
  38. Griffin, if ignorance is the standard then your ignorance of basic Reformed theology and the magisterial reformation is enough to convict you of worse.

    You're no Spurgeon. And you're certainly no John Gill.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Steve Griffin wrote:
    'Perhaps it would be helpful, Charlie, if you could give a specific example of "Confessionalism...grinding theological exploration to a standstill."'
    =============

    CEH: Well, I think you have a visual aid unfolding right before your eyes (so much so, my words may seem superfluous). But anyway, I take it you mean issue/idea-wise. And, in that sense you have answered your own question with your example. [In LBCF 26.4, if the article "the" has any weight, Preterist exegesis would seem to have overturned that section -- thus making it a quaint antiquated relic.] But mostly, what I'm questioning here is more of an attitude than particular issues --as in the example of the quote from Dr. Bauman).

    I am perfectly happy to reaffirm ideas embodied in the confessions which can withstand rigorous scrutiny.


    Steve Griffin wrote:
    'Also, perhaps you could provide a doctrine from a specific confession which you feel to be in error.'
    =============

    CEH: Two examples which seem to NOT be withstanding the scrutiny, are the sabbatarianism of the Westminster divines, and the young earth creationism (YEC) which many believe the WCF teaches. If the WCF does teach YEC, it very well could be wrong. But anyway, by "Confessionalism" I have in mind this mindset (which is kind of an obscurantist fundamentalism) which effectively conflates the Protestant confessions with Scripture (even while giving lip service to the conceptual distinction). And if this conflation is real(albeit unintentional, and unwitting) then you have a kind of ecclesiastical continuing revelation (like in the Roman Catholic Church's "tradition", viz., the RCC Magisterium). Indeed, a failure to keep a bright-line separation effectively makes the confessions a Protestant Magisterium, imo.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Charles Harris,
    Yes...a "visual aid"...a "visual aid" indeed--the likes of which I've never seen! And, since I've never really witnessed anything like what has been on display here; I wonder if "Confessionalism grinding theological exploration to a standstill" is really such a widespread problem?

    As you know, I am a confessional Reformed Baptist, and I fellowship with other confessional Reformed Baptists and confessing Presbyterians (OPC). None of us has the extreme views and the uncharitable and illogical conclusions as does Charlie J. Ray. So, in your estimation, how widespread is this kind of, shall we say, "caricatured" mind-set? (In other words, is adherance to a confession to be blamed for the likes of Charlie J. Ray? I would think not--at least not necessarily.

    Also, Charles Harris, I would like your thoughts on the following.

    "“The genuine and original Protestant position is that the church is bound to be a confessing church - that doesn't mean it has a confessional box but that it subscribes a statement of what it believes Scripture teaches. The original Protestants understood this very well. Hence Lutheran, Presbyterian, Anglican, and early Baptist churches expressed their faith by continuing to accept the so-called Apostles' Creed and by compiling quite lengthy Confessions of Faith. A striking unanimity is found in these confessions, the differences being almost entirely confined to some points on the sacraments, on church government and on the application of Scripture to worship.

    “This does not mean that the Confession has become supreme, for the Confession is not co-ordinate with Scripture or above it, nor the primary ground of faith. It is derivative and thus subordinate but yet not opposed to Scripture. It merely seeks to set forth what Scripture teaches on various subjects so as to be a suitable bond of union for those agreed as to the teaching of Scripture. Scripture is the final court of appeal. This is what the Protestant Reformers meant by sola scriptura.”
    http://www.reformedreader.org/ssss.htm

    ReplyDelete
  41. Charlie J. Ray wrote:
    'The point you're missing is that the Reformed standards have been proved to have their "most certain warrant" in Holy Scripture.'
    ===========

    CEH: As I said above, it may prove that WCF Chapter 4.1 is wrong --if that section necessarily teaches YEC. Perhaps the wording is general enough that any view of origins can be shoehorned into it. Perhaps not. And, it seems pretty clear to me WCF Chapter 25.6b is without a doubt wrong because its implicit historicism from the Reformers was subsequently later found to misguided -- whether one is Idealist, Preterist, or even Futurist.


    Charlie J. Ray wrote:
    'Unless and until you can convince the majority of the Reformed churches that the standards have erred then the standards are normative and dogmatic theology to which you must adhere if you wish to be seriously considered as "Reformed".'
    ==========

    CEH: From my reading, I can't think of anyone within the Reformed churches, or without, who accepts the historicism of the Reformation era.


    Charlie J. Ray wrote:
    'My view of the church always reforming is different from yours.'
    =========

    CEH: No doubt. I acknowledged as much at the end of my opening post.


    Charlie J. Ray wrote:
    'Instead of jettisoning the Pauline epistles as the New Perspectives on Paul do, I view the church always reforming as confronting heresiarchs and their heresies as a function of ongoing Reformation.'
    ============

    CEH: I don't think those things have to be mutually exclusive. When heresies take hold in the Church they need to be reformed out of it. But also, where the Reformers and their progeny erred, those things must also be reformed out of the Church.

    In any case, I doubt the Westminster Divines even held the confessions in the esteem folks like you do. Indeed, the WCF Chapter 31.4 contradicts your opinion. It says, 'All synods or councils, since the apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both.'

    That pretty much says, all producers of confessions err, and therefore all confessions have errors.


    Charlie J. Ray wrote:
    'Just as the original Reformers confronted Papist heresies and stood for the authority of Holy Scripture above human tradition and reason...'
    ============

    CEH: Thats just it. The Confessions are reasoned human tradition.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Steve Griffin wrote:
    '...since I've never really witnessed anything like what has been on display here; I wonder if "Confessionalism grinding theological exploration to a standstill" is really such a widespread problem?'

    CEH: To be sure, the visibility of polemicists of the likes of Charlie Ray's over the top style are rare, in print. They are more common to the internet --from what I can tell. He combines the extreme narrowness of the Clarkian "Scripturalism" methodology, with a even more narrow strict subscriptionist confessionalism, for a extreme Reformed fundamentalism uncommon in polite Christian society.

    Nevertheless, outside of Clarkian circles are other strict subscriptionists who insist on fastidious fealty to whatever confession their denomination prefers. They are also a minority, but also a thorn in the side of the Church. It might be that their are some Reformed Baptist congregations who would consider you unordainable for your doubts (if its fair to call them that) on LBCF 26-4. I think it would be few, but it can't be ruled out that there probably are a few. I have heard there are Presbyteries who won't ordain a man who doesn't affirm literal 6-day creation.

    Steve Griffin wrote:
    'Also, Charles Harris, I would like your thoughts on the following.

    "“The genuine and original Protestant position is that the church is bound to be a confessing church - that doesn't mean it has a confessional box but that it subscribes a statement of what it believes Scripture teaches.'

    CEH: Sure. But as a practical matter, if you "confess" the LBCF (or, whatever) then over time you are presented with one of three choices, imo.

    (1) Unquestioning total devotion to every jot and tittle of the confession. Thus, you are deaf to all theological arguments not in line with it.

    (2) You hold it more loosely and take "exceptions" to certain points. (This is what most Presbyterian ministerial candidates do with regard to the WCF standards regarding the use of the Sabbath --i.e., the take an exception). If they don't have too many exceptions(or, any in critical areas) then they are "ordainable".

    But, over the years if these exceptions accumulate (and you don't formally renounce your "confessionalism") then your confessionalism dies the death of a 1000 cuts, and becomes only a shell of what it once was. And thus, not very meaningful.

    (3) You could agree with it in an even looser sense (as I do) and say it is a pretty good summary, but with a number of antiquated phrases and concepts. Thus, as a practical matter, a more updated statement of faith would be more useful in 21st century congregation.

    I could say more, but I'm out of time. So, I'll save that for another reply. Hope that gives you something to play off for further comment.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Charlie Ray: "Where is your chapter and verse for your line of bullshit?"

    Ah, a fellow Mark Driscoll fan, I see. lol.

    I'm a five point Calvinist who holds to Covenant Theology, and loves the Westminster and Heidelberg Confessions.

    But I think your problem in looking at what Charlie Harris has done here can be rightly be classified as as a fallacy of composition. Just because some items in confessions we can be 100% sure of (insert core doctrinal beliefs here) does not mean that we can be 100% of all items in said confessions. All items in a confession are not equally inspired and for you to claim that they are is tantamount to a repudiation of sola scriptura. One interesting side note I would add is that it's funny that you're so gung-ho about every jot and tittle of a confession as I finished Bruce Gordon's bio of Calvin several months ago (an excellent read) and I was shocked at how Calvin compromised in composing confessions with other theologians as he wanted to keep unity between Zwinglians in Zurich and Lutherans in Germany. Even a man such as Calvin compromised on less important theological issues for the sake of political expediency. (And this is not an atypical thing.)

    Anyways, in order to end my post, I must share a quote that I once used in a paper, the source of which I do not, at present have, from Luther:

    "To hell with the fathers, what say the Scriptures?"

    Okay, back to case readings now.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Steve Griffin quoted:
    'The original Protestants understood this very well. Hence Lutheran, Presbyterian, Anglican, and early Baptist churches expressed their faith by continuing to accept the so-called Apostles' Creed and by compiling quite lengthy Confessions of Faith.'
    ===========

    CEH: Yeah but, I think it likely they scrutinized the ancient creeds --at one point in time or another-- just to be sure that the ancients hadn't erred. The Patristic writings contain a number of questionable ideas, so its not hard to imagine that there could be expressions in the ancient creeds which have less than ideal wording. For example, the 381 AD version of the Nicene Creed says:

    '...we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins...'

    Whereas, the 325AD edition does not. I think most Reformed people (certainly most Baptists) would have a problem confessing that line of the Creed. The difference between the two editions suggests to me that the Sacerdotalism which had arisen in the early-medieval/late-ancient Church (4th century -- around the time of the writings of Cyprian, cf. "Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace", by Paul King Jewett), made its way into the 2nd edition of the Nicene Creed.


    Steve Griffin quoted:
    'A striking unanimity is found in these confessions, the differences being almost entirely confined to some points on the sacraments, on church government and on the application of Scripture to worship.'
    ===========

    CEH: Agreed. But, this speaks in part to their apologetical nature in that they were designed in part to contradict certain beliefs and practices in the institutional Church. But also, it speaks to their ecumenical nature in that the writers intended to want to agree to a uniform faith. For example, the 2nd London Baptist Confession is essentially the Westminster Confession of Faith revised with supplemental material from the "Savoy Declaration" (Congregational), and then with Baptist distinctions.


    Steve Griffin quoted:
    '“This does not mean that the Confession has become supreme, for the Confession is not co-ordinate with Scripture or above it, nor the primary ground of faith. It is derivative and thus subordinate but yet not opposed to Scripture.'
    ===========

    CEH: Conceptually that is the position. The question is, practically how is a confession used? Often ministers are disciplined for being in contradiction with the confession. Seldom do you hear about a council being called to re-open a confession for revision. Perhaps someone should start a movement to amend the LBCF @ 26-4.


    Steve Griffin quoted:
    'It merely seeks to set forth what Scripture teaches on various subjects so as to be a suitable bond of union for those agreed as to the teaching of Scripture. Scripture is the final court of appeal. This is what the Protestant Reformers meant by sola scriptura.”'
    ===========

    CEH: The sincerity test of that would be the reaction to amending errors in the confession, wouldn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  45. Charles Harris,
    I suppose I'd put myself in the neighborhood of your second option. I " hold it more loosely and take 'exceptions' to certain points."

    You write: "the 2nd London Baptist Confession is essentially the Westminster Confession of Faith revised with supplemental material from the 'Savoy Declaration' (Congregational), and then with Baptist distinctions."

    Agreed.

    You write: "Often ministers are disciplined for being in contradiction with the confession."

    And, I believe, they should be even more often. I think one has to weigh the gravity of the "contradiction." For example, to question that the Pope is The Antichrist is not to be--in any sense--equated with questioning the deity of Christ. Nor is doubting 26:4 (LBCF)to be equated with doubting 25:1, "Marriage is to be between one man and one woman..." (LBCF).

    If scripture is truly the "final court of appeal," then the church should not be opposed to comparing confessions to the Bible and ammending confessions if they are conclusively found to err. That is to say, the Church can ammend the confession when or if the confession fails to faithfully explicate the clear teaching of sripture.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Steve Griffin wrote: 'If scripture is truly the "final court of appeal," then the church should not be opposed to comparing confessions to the Bible and ammending confessions if they are conclusively found to err. That is to say, the Church can ammend the confession when or if the confession fails to faithfully explicate the clear teaching of sripture.'

    CEH: That is certainly the pro forma position which is taken by most theologians because few would go as far as Charlie Ray in their statements (though there are a few). But, I suspect there is a great romantic attachment to the venerable Protestant Confessions, and thus there would be little stomach for the project of amending.

    So given that, if there is any intellectual discomfort caused to the conscience by a confession -- which is to say, any "cognitive dissonance -- then theologians may either find previously unnoticed elasticity in problematic confessional statements, and thus more easily shoehorn new uses for old phrases, or they might double-down in their intransigence insisting there are no errors in the confession. Or, they may dismiss the statements as obsolete, or mistaken, and yet still "confess" the confession, mostly. Strict confessors --like Charlie Ray-- will find reason to call people who don't confess to every jot and tittle: "liberal", not truly reformed, or some other denigration.

    ReplyDelete