It was either Scott Clark or Carl Trueman that said this. I think the point is a profound one and it helps explain both the Reformers use of ancient sources even while noting significant disagreements with them. Someone had pointed out that the Reformed actually differ with Augustine on justification. Yes, and what of it? It actually illustrates how we use ancient sources. We are not cherry picking through the fathers, but reading them in conjunction with our reading of Scripture.
I grant that Augustine had a (from my perspective) a problematic view of justification, even if I can appreciate what he said about original sin and predestination. If I read Scripture and note that faith is contrary to a works-principle, and yet see elements of a works-principle in Augustine, then I politely say Augustine erred on this point. Even the most hard-core Anchorite does not agree with even his favorite fathers on everything. Even Athanasius taught the extra-calvinisticum (and this is extremely problematic if you believe what Leontius of Byzantium taught regarding enhypostasia).
A clearer example would be St Anselm. If it weren’t for St Anselm we would be stuck with some of the sillier ransom theories of the atonement. Do we fully accept what Anselm said? No, for few of us mentally operate in terms of feudal justice. But he asked the right questions.
My friend Daniel Ritchie has offered his own version of retractare in the past. I want to do mine. These are in no particular order.
The Theonomy People
I’ve listed problems with theonomy before. They are to be commended for influencing Reformed scholars to go back to careful study of the Old Testament (Poythress said he wouldn’t have written his work if it weren’t for Rushdoony). They are to be commended for their critique of absolute statism, but there are problems. The post-theonomy (for lack of a better word, this would be the third generation theonomists) are probably guilty of violating the 9th commandment. Their unceasing attacks on men like Michael Horton and others at Westminster Seminary California are uncalled for. I disagree with Horton and Co.’s social ethic, but the man is a minister in Christ’s church and Horton has probably done as much as anybody in spreading the Reformed faith. I admit; it’s sometimes funny to watch D.G. Hart get riled up, but the falsely so-called “R2K” guys have majored on the majors: The doctrine of worship and the church. Modern American Theonomy, by contrast, has largely failed in this area.
As for my own position, I believe the Old Testament law can be used today when necessary.
This does not preclude natural law, but presupposes it (more below)
Theonomy is not the position of the Reformers; natural law is. Yes, Bucer used the Mosaic judicials, but only because he saw them as part of his natural law heritage. We should do likewise.
This is where I am different from most natural law amillennarians: I do not believe common grace is sufficient as an ethical category for government. It merely describes how unbelievers are not as bad as they could be. I remain unconvinced that it has ethical content.
I’ve gone back and forth on Van Til for some time now. I think when it comes to Roman Catholicism and explaining what Reformed theology is, Van Til is as fine as anybody. His lectures on “chain-of-being” theology are quite good. His apologetic method, though, is completely indefensible. I think Reformed people are better served by a mix of Reformed scholasticism and Common Sense Realism.
As for my own position, I think the TAG method is an open-door to Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy. It explicitly attacks the foundations of knowledge and inadvertently relativises truth-claims. No longer having a clear revelation from God, one has Tradition (as interpreted by a certain community).
As for a positive apologetic, I don’t really care. I think Anselm is interesting and his ontological argument has some subordinate value.
This is a difficult one. I think the Reformers (and quite frankly, the entire church) were wise never to use the “millennial” terms in explaining what they believe. More often than not, modern Reformed eschatological questions are more political than anything else. Saying, “I am postmil” or “common grace amil” implies more than the timing of Christ’s return.
As for my own position, I am certainly a Reformed historicist. This is the Reformed position.
Historic premillennialism, while having a respectful pedigree, simply entails too many difficulties. Further, I have found that the deeper I dig into historic premillennialism, the harder it is to be Reformed.
I think it is more important to be clear on eschatological hermeneutics than on identifying a millennial position.
For around five years I’ve been a fairly staunch defender of limited monarchy. That’s still the case. My only difference now is that I do not see the Bible requiring it (or any specific mode of government). Each style of government has its strengths and weaknesses.
Monarchists (like myself) need to admit that 1 Samuel 8 does place some restrictive parameters on the glory of monarchy.
Republicans (small “r”) need to admit that the Torah did provide (and I think expected) a monarchy. If that’s not the case, then why is Deuteronomy 17 in the Bible? Nelson Kloosterman has made a fairly convincing case that there existed a possibility that Israel could have had a king and not sinned in asking so. Here is how I think it would have worked: the end of the book of Judges essentially begs for a monarchy. Deuteronomy 17 had already provided for a shepherd-king (the Christological overtones are deliberate). Had Israel wanted a shepherd to guide them, I believe God would have praised their request. Further, biblical eschatology moves in the direction of monarchy, not republicanism.
I am an adherent of an Althusian-style natural law theory. The problem many theonomists had was that their critics (and the theonomists themselves) had said, “Natural law OR God’s law.” But this is where theonomists and their critics were wrong. Natural law is God’s law, provided natural law is defined as creation ordinances. The problem here is the inferences people drew from that phrase. I won’t go into that now. More to the point, Reformed natural law theorists could gladly appeal (and did!) to the Mosaic judicials. Modern Calvinism’s embarrassment over Moses doesn’t help. God’s law is morally just and should be consulted. Theonomists, by contrast, never provided satisfactory accounts of the New Testament’s modification of the Mosaic law.
I have no problem with the two kingdoms doctrine, provided the difference between the two kingdoms is in administration, not ethical norms.