What are your thoughts about this article? Do you think Reformed churches are overly reliant on reformed tradition?
The Danger of Reformed Traditionalism » It Is Written
The Danger of Reformed Traditionalism » It Is Written
Last edited:
Dangers of Reformed Traditionalism
- Thread starter JML
- Start date
- Status
An Independent Bible teacher holds to his own set of doctrines (which is a personal creed, however loosely tied to a previously codified set). He teaches his Bible interpretation (which is his creed) to others in hopes that they will adopt it as theirs, expecting it to be biblical. It's pretty heady to have people submit to one's teaching authority--and if some malcontent complains that this or that point is contrary to the church's confessional basis for unity, well then too bad for that WRONG element of the confession. "If you don't like what I'm teaching for truth today, then take a hike." The confession isn't the basis for unity in that church, the pastor's personal views are.
BG criticizes Hoeksema for writing a confessionally consistent dogmatics (HH didn't believe he was defending a Scripture-defined set of dogmas?), and he criticizes Hart & Meuther for defending a view of worship that used to be considered strictly biblical (and today, those two guys are being anti-biblical for thinking the same thing?). But what, exactly, is wrong about being content that what was faithfully taught to you in church as biblical is still biblical? Doesn't BG want to be biblical in his teaching, and for people to accept what he's teaching them as biblical, and that tomorrow their children it will still reckon the truths passed on to them were biblical? Is it ever OK to use shorthand? To say, "we're already agreed on that"?
If BG just feels the need periodically to sound a warning siren against an anti-intellectual, incurious "traditionalism," OK. Sure, our churches should be known as Scripture-houses, not bastions of factionalism. The nice thing about creeds that have stood the test of time is that, as they were adopted by whole churches (whatever their origins) they stopped being purely one man's opinion about what the Bible teaches, and became a joint declaration of unity concerning what we agree the Bible teaches. When you deviate from a certain tradition, depending on the seriousness of the turn you may not fit with that basis for unity any more. If Christians retreat to "we just believe the Bible," then Chalcedonians and Arians are each group just varieties of Christian.
Don't we just need to know/admit that we (all) are "traditional"--since there's nothing new under the sun--and it's best to identify which grouping (be it a specific historical line, or more of a methodological affiliation, or some other category) to which we belong?
BG criticizes Hoeksema for writing a confessionally consistent dogmatics (HH didn't believe he was defending a Scripture-defined set of dogmas?), and he criticizes Hart & Meuther for defending a view of worship that used to be considered strictly biblical (and today, those two guys are being anti-biblical for thinking the same thing?). But what, exactly, is wrong about being content that what was faithfully taught to you in church as biblical is still biblical? Doesn't BG want to be biblical in his teaching, and for people to accept what he's teaching them as biblical, and that tomorrow their children it will still reckon the truths passed on to them were biblical? Is it ever OK to use shorthand? To say, "we're already agreed on that"?
If BG just feels the need periodically to sound a warning siren against an anti-intellectual, incurious "traditionalism," OK. Sure, our churches should be known as Scripture-houses, not bastions of factionalism. The nice thing about creeds that have stood the test of time is that, as they were adopted by whole churches (whatever their origins) they stopped being purely one man's opinion about what the Bible teaches, and became a joint declaration of unity concerning what we agree the Bible teaches. When you deviate from a certain tradition, depending on the seriousness of the turn you may not fit with that basis for unity any more. If Christians retreat to "we just believe the Bible," then Chalcedonians and Arians are each group just varieties of Christian.
Don't we just need to know/admit that we (all) are "traditional"--since there's nothing new under the sun--and it's best to identify which grouping (be it a specific historical line, or more of a methodological affiliation, or some other category) to which we belong?
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
Experience itself surely teaches us that "Reformed private-opinionism" is a much greater danger to the Reformed churches than legitimate reverence for the confessions. In truth, the article is weak owing to the author's apparent lack of understanding of or respect for the authority of the church. The Westminster Confession tells us something important about the lawful decisions of ecclesiastical courts: "which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in His Word." [31:3] This, of course, is in full agreement with scripture: "Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account." (Hebrews 13:17).
The biblical and confessional approach to church dogma stands in contrast to that of the author of the above article, who criticises another theologian for his "concern to base his doctrinal formulations both in the teaching of Scripture and also in the Reformed continental symbols." Moreover, he criticises Darryl Hart and John Muether for writing a primer on worship in accordance with "Scripture and Reformed confessions". Seriously, what do confessions exist for if even church officers can be criticised for being zealous to adhere to their ordination vows?
Obviously, if the Reformed confessions are wrong on something [hypothetically speaking], then that particular teaching should be jettisoned in favour of scripture. Such modifications, however, are serious undertakings, which are not to be done lightly. The confessions could only be modified after serious reflection and deliberation on the part of the relevant ecclesiastical authorities. Any other approach will leave us in bondage to the whims and fancies of every 20 year old with a Bible and an internet connection.
Judge among yourselves: how many times have you ended up with egg on your face as a result of either a) dogmatising about extra-confessional matters; b) advocating unconfessional errors because you thought you knew better than the Reformers and Westminster divines only to find out later that the reason the confessional framers differed with you was that they had a better grasp of the Bible?
Last edited:
Jack K
Puritan Board Doctor
It's often good to listen to one's critics, especially if they're smart critics.
I still feel as if a lack of appreciation for Reformed confessions and tradition is a far bigger threat to the larger church than is an over-appreciation for these things. But I do sense an over-reliance on tradition in some circles... where a man might do some strong, biblically researched teaching on a subject and then get blasted because the language he used sounded different from confessional language. And such criticism may come from men who haven't studied the topic biblically in much depth at all, but are merely quoting a confession and citing its proof texts. That kind of thing does happen, and usually is unhelpful. It discourages rather than encourages strong biblical study.
Again, I see that sort of thing rarely compared to number of places I see where a strong confessional foundation would be a great improvement. But I can see how the article's author lives in a world where he might encounter more cases where people know the confession better than they know their Bibles and the cart ends up leading the horse. The article should not be entirely dismissed.
I still feel as if a lack of appreciation for Reformed confessions and tradition is a far bigger threat to the larger church than is an over-appreciation for these things. But I do sense an over-reliance on tradition in some circles... where a man might do some strong, biblically researched teaching on a subject and then get blasted because the language he used sounded different from confessional language. And such criticism may come from men who haven't studied the topic biblically in much depth at all, but are merely quoting a confession and citing its proof texts. That kind of thing does happen, and usually is unhelpful. It discourages rather than encourages strong biblical study.
Again, I see that sort of thing rarely compared to number of places I see where a strong confessional foundation would be a great improvement. But I can see how the article's author lives in a world where he might encounter more cases where people know the confession better than they know their Bibles and the cart ends up leading the horse. The article should not be entirely dismissed.
Covenant Joel
Puritan Board Sophomore
With all such issues, I find that it largely depends on audience. In evangelicalism as a whole, and even segments of the ostensibly Reformed world that are broadly evangelical, certainly lack of knowledge and use of the Reformed tradition is the larger problem.
In other circles, I have heard the Confessions and Catechisms quoted more than Scripture. One well-known confessional blog even suggested (I always hoped it was tongue-in-cheek, but didn't exactly seem to be) that one might be better served by memorizing the WSC than by memorizing Scripture passages. To that crowd sure we'd want to be aware of the danger of putting tradition above Scripture.
In my own view, we need two things: 1) We need more, not less, faithfulness to the Reformed confessions. 2) Those of us who seek to be faithful to those confessions need to be gracious, loving, winsome, and clear in our communication of the truths which we confess. Sometimes the non-confessional crowd has us beat in the latter. We need both.
In other circles, I have heard the Confessions and Catechisms quoted more than Scripture. One well-known confessional blog even suggested (I always hoped it was tongue-in-cheek, but didn't exactly seem to be) that one might be better served by memorizing the WSC than by memorizing Scripture passages. To that crowd sure we'd want to be aware of the danger of putting tradition above Scripture.
In my own view, we need two things: 1) We need more, not less, faithfulness to the Reformed confessions. 2) Those of us who seek to be faithful to those confessions need to be gracious, loving, winsome, and clear in our communication of the truths which we confess. Sometimes the non-confessional crowd has us beat in the latter. We need both.
C. M. Sheffield
Puritan Board Graduate
On the whole, this article seems to strike directly at the very concept of confessionalism.
Here he subtly implies that confessioanlism and "biblicism" are at variance with one another. That it must necessarily be one or the other. And that confessionalism and biblicism cannot go hand-in-hand.
I don't think he has sufficiently demonstrated that confessional Reformed churches have elevated their doctrinal standards to be equal with the Bible either practically or theoretically. It would appear from what he says here that a church actually making use of a confession of faith within the life of the church is what he means to impugn (either wittingly or unwittingly).
He cites Herman Hoeksema as an example of what we must avoid:
At the outset, we should note the subtle difference between bare systematic theology and dogmatics. The later is a systematic theology which is written from a distinct confessional or creedal tradition while the former may have no explicit confessional or ecclesiastical loyalties. So out of the gate, Hoeksema is endeavouring to set down a comprehensive treatment of the historic Reformed faith.
Is this wrong? Only if it can be sufficiently demonstrated that Dr. Hoeksema has explicitly stated or practically implied that the Reformed Confessions have an authority independent of or equal to the Bible. However what is being maintained by Dr. Hoeksema and countless other confessional Christians is that their respective creeds, confessions, catechisms do indeed articulate that doctrine laid down in God's Word which alone is the basis of faith and practice.
It would seem Dr. Gonzales would have us keep our confessions but never be so strident as to say that they are indeed accurate statements of biblical doctrine. For in so doing, we cease to be Biblicists. I disagree.
What of the Ecumenical Creeds? Is it wrong to say that if one's Christology fails to comply with the Definition of Chalcedon that it is unorthodox? Certainly not! But not because that creed shares an authority equal with the Word of God, but because the Definition is an accurate statement of the Bible's teaching on the person of Christ. But Dr. Gonzales' arguments here would seem to imply that such confidence in a creedal formulation is antithetical to a thoroughgoing "Biblicism."
If the essence of being "Reformed" is being Reformed according to Scripture, then I fail to see how being "Biblical" or "Reformed" are necessarily different. I am a Reformed Baptist because I believe the Baptist Confession of Faith to be an accurate statement of what the Bible teaches. If I did not feel that was the case, I would abandon the Confession for one that was more biblical. As Spurgeon said: "If I thought it were wrong to be a Baptist, I should give it up, and become what I believed to be right."
But as it is, my confessionalism springs from my "biblicism" and is not contrary to it.
Here he subtly implies that confessioanlism and "biblicism" are at variance with one another. That it must necessarily be one or the other. And that confessionalism and biblicism cannot go hand-in-hand.
I don't think he has sufficiently demonstrated that confessional Reformed churches have elevated their doctrinal standards to be equal with the Bible either practically or theoretically. It would appear from what he says here that a church actually making use of a confession of faith within the life of the church is what he means to impugn (either wittingly or unwittingly).
He cites Herman Hoeksema as an example of what we must avoid:
At the outset, we should note the subtle difference between bare systematic theology and dogmatics. The later is a systematic theology which is written from a distinct confessional or creedal tradition while the former may have no explicit confessional or ecclesiastical loyalties. So out of the gate, Hoeksema is endeavouring to set down a comprehensive treatment of the historic Reformed faith.
Is this wrong? Only if it can be sufficiently demonstrated that Dr. Hoeksema has explicitly stated or practically implied that the Reformed Confessions have an authority independent of or equal to the Bible. However what is being maintained by Dr. Hoeksema and countless other confessional Christians is that their respective creeds, confessions, catechisms do indeed articulate that doctrine laid down in God's Word which alone is the basis of faith and practice.
It would seem Dr. Gonzales would have us keep our confessions but never be so strident as to say that they are indeed accurate statements of biblical doctrine. For in so doing, we cease to be Biblicists. I disagree.
What of the Ecumenical Creeds? Is it wrong to say that if one's Christology fails to comply with the Definition of Chalcedon that it is unorthodox? Certainly not! But not because that creed shares an authority equal with the Word of God, but because the Definition is an accurate statement of the Bible's teaching on the person of Christ. But Dr. Gonzales' arguments here would seem to imply that such confidence in a creedal formulation is antithetical to a thoroughgoing "Biblicism."
If the essence of being "Reformed" is being Reformed according to Scripture, then I fail to see how being "Biblical" or "Reformed" are necessarily different. I am a Reformed Baptist because I believe the Baptist Confession of Faith to be an accurate statement of what the Bible teaches. If I did not feel that was the case, I would abandon the Confession for one that was more biblical. As Spurgeon said: "If I thought it were wrong to be a Baptist, I should give it up, and become what I believed to be right."
But as it is, my confessionalism springs from my "biblicism" and is not contrary to it.
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
To neglect the creeds is to neglect a deposit of illumination given to the Church down through the centuries by the Holy Spirit, but the creeds derive their authority from Scripture, not the other way around.
It seems a number of non-traditional movements have caused trouble in the Reformed church in America in recent decades. Without "traditionalism" and creedalism, more folk would have floated off in novel and unbiblical directions.
It seems a number of non-traditional movements have caused trouble in the Reformed church in America in recent decades. Without "traditionalism" and creedalism, more folk would have floated off in novel and unbiblical directions.
Captain Picard
Puritan Board Freshman
I agree that confessionalism and "Biblicism" are compatible, and ignoring that everyone is in some sense a "traditionalist" can be dangerous, but I think an overemphasis on Reformed tradition has demonstrated it's dangers in the form of some of the Auburn Avenue folks. Regardless of whether you think they are misrepresenting Westminster, it's reformed tradition and specifically Calvin's view of Baptism that they appeal to.
SolaScriptura
Puritanboard Brimstone
I think it is always wise to be self-critical and reflective of one's own positions. I share a commitment with Bob that my commitment to sola Scriptura as a principle means that we are at least in theory open to the possibility that our confessions and traditions are able to be found deficient and subsequently improved upon.
While others have already commented on a perceived attack on confessionalism itself, I want to address my confusion at something else: We writes about a resurging traditionalism in Reformed circles. I was literally scratching my head. Who on earth is he talking about? The (relatively few) people on the PB? Seriously, as I consider the brazen and glaring anti-traditionalism so prevalent in PCA churches, I wonder, "Who are you talking to, Bob?"
While others have already commented on a perceived attack on confessionalism itself, I want to address my confusion at something else: We writes about a resurging traditionalism in Reformed circles. I was literally scratching my head. Who on earth is he talking about? The (relatively few) people on the PB? Seriously, as I consider the brazen and glaring anti-traditionalism so prevalent in PCA churches, I wonder, "Who are you talking to, Bob?"
JP Wallace
Puritan Board Sophomore
Ben
I'm assuming he's talking
a) mainly to RB's
b) to those who do not accept Frame's revisionistic perspectives (all three of them
) on worship and the regulative principle
c) those who maintain that said revisionistic perspectives are not in keeping with the reformed 'tradition' and confessions and call us back to those confessional positions.
That said I'm back where you are when he writes,
"Instead of expending the bulk of our energies exegeting the Confession and the writings of Luther, Calvin, and the Puritans, we need to go back farther in history and find the answers and solutions to modern questions and problems as they’re provided in the writings of Moses, the Prophets, and the Apostles."
Where are these preachers and pastors spending the bulk of their energies exegeting the Confessions etc.? Who are these pastors and preachers ignoring the Scriptures?
I can think of no pastor or preacher and not even most theologians who match that description. The ones that do, do so as legitimate scholars - but in the main beyond a shadow of a doubt the vast majority of us spend the bulk of our energies exegeting and preaching Scripture. And if that just happens to match up with historic Reformed confessional orthodoxy - I feel no shame in saying so!
I'm assuming he's talking
a) mainly to RB's
b) to those who do not accept Frame's revisionistic perspectives (all three of them
) on worship and the regulative principlec) those who maintain that said revisionistic perspectives are not in keeping with the reformed 'tradition' and confessions and call us back to those confessional positions.
That said I'm back where you are when he writes,
"Instead of expending the bulk of our energies exegeting the Confession and the writings of Luther, Calvin, and the Puritans, we need to go back farther in history and find the answers and solutions to modern questions and problems as they’re provided in the writings of Moses, the Prophets, and the Apostles."
Where are these preachers and pastors spending the bulk of their energies exegeting the Confessions etc.? Who are these pastors and preachers ignoring the Scriptures?
I can think of no pastor or preacher and not even most theologians who match that description. The ones that do, do so as legitimate scholars - but in the main beyond a shadow of a doubt the vast majority of us spend the bulk of our energies exegeting and preaching Scripture. And if that just happens to match up with historic Reformed confessional orthodoxy - I feel no shame in saying so!
It seeks to replace the Reformed tradition with the tradition of the radical reformation. As a Protestant it has no appeal to me.
It is not a matter of Bible or tradition, but which tradition of interpretation.
Ben
I'm assuming he's talking
a) mainly to RB's
b) to those who do not accept Frame's revisionistic perspectives (all three of them
c) those who maintain that said revisionistic perspectives are not in keeping with the reformed 'tradition' and confessions and call us back to those confessional positions.
That said I'm back where you are when he writes,
"Instead of expending the bulk of our energies exegeting the Confession and the writings of Luther, Calvin, and the Puritans, we need to go back farther in history and find the answers and solutions to modern questions and problems as they’re provided in the writings of Moses, the Prophets, and the Apostles."
Where are these preachers and pastors spending the bulk of their energies exegeting the Confessions etc.? Who are these pastors and preachers ignoring the Scriptures?
I can think of no pastor or preacher and not even most theologians who match that description. The ones that do, do so as legitimate scholars - but in the main beyond a shadow of a doubt the vast majority of us spend the bulk of our energies exegeting and preaching Scripture. And if that just happens to match up with historic Reformed confessional orthodoxy - I feel no shame in saying so!
I initially thought he was writing to RBs but Hoeksema, Hart, and Meuther are all Presbyterians, I think. He seems concerned with Baptists who have 'Reformed' in their name. Maybe he is writing primarily to ARBCA member churches.
C. M. Sheffield
Puritan Board Graduate
I felt that statement was sensational and beyond the pale. "Exegeting" the Puritans, Calvin, and Luther? Instead of the Bible?
timmopussycat
Puritan Board Junior
The author has a history of encountering reformed believers who failed to provide scriptural foundations that addressed his concerns expressed on a foundation of strong and prima facie appropriate scriptural support; meeting them instead with citations of the opinions of reformed worthies. This illustrates a problem. It is better to be able to meet unconfessional theology with demonstrably Scriptural statements or GNC deductions therefrom: it is not of the same order of effectiveness to reply with mere opinions of men, no matter how learned.
Last edited:
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
Surely the Federal Vision also thrives on a "no creed but the Bible mindset". Its desire for novelty is one of the reasons why they reject the Covenant of Works, as monocovenantalism is key to their whole theological system. Moreover, whenever reports have been published by church courts pointing out that Federal Vision teaching is unconfessional, they nearly always immediately respond by arguing that it does not matter if their teachings are contra-confessional, as they are only concerned with whether or not their teachings are biblical (even though they have often taken vows which stated that they believed the Westminster Standards were biblical). I have no problem with people asking for biblical reasons why they are mistaken, but I also have no problem with people who have professed allegiance to certain standards being called to account for teaching dogmas at variance with such professed standards.
TylerRay
Puritan Board Graduate
Gonzales is confusing traditionalsim with confessionalism. Confessionalism is subjection to the authoritative creed adopted by a church on the basis that it is representative of the system of doctrine taught in Scripture. Traditionalism is subjection to the mind of the church in ages past. Confessionalsim is static (until the confession is changed or a new one adopted in its place); traditionalism is slippery (because the mind of the church changes in every age).
earl40
Puritan Board Professor
Good point Richard. This we all can see that those who stray from the five solas, which were codified in The Reformation, usually end up with little or no official creed.
TylerRay
Puritan Board Graduate
Federal Visionists are most certainly biblicists. They claim to love tradition, but really they love innovation (new perspectives and new paradigms). They also claim to hold to a confession of faith (usually the Westminster Standards or the TFU), but they take untold numbers of exceptions to these confessions in good conscience because of the tradition of the PCA and other bodies in requiring only a "good faith subscription."
You don't have to peruse James B. Jordan's blog long to find him saying something like:
GloriousBoaz
Puritan Board Freshman
I think the article is good for an audience like Puritanboard, to keep us balanced. And this thread, and comments on it, then would be great for Calvary Chapel type "no creed but Christ" Christians that I grew up with, to sharpen them and balance them out.
Unoriginalname
Puritan Board Junior
I found it silly. I do not know if anyone holds to such a position that the article claims is plaguing the reformed world.
GloriousBoaz
Puritan Board Freshman
I know quite a few.
- Status
Similar threads
