It was suggested that I was too subjective in theology and disagreed with everybody. Obviously, such a claim is false. I think I know why people say it, though. I don’t walk lock-step with any one man. God expects us to be big boys and big girls. John said that we have an anointing from the Holy Spirit and don’t need to be overly dependent on teachers. I had originally invited anchorites to point out my disagreements with the Confession. That invitation is still open. In the following is a list of theological “values.” Values are what are important to our identity as Christians standing in the Reformed catholic tradition. They must be preserved. That does not mean, however, that the philosophical presuppositions and currency of the 5th or 16th century are on the same level of Scripture. Nor does this mean shying away from actual difficulties in a position.
Unfortunately, when anyone in a Reformed setting tries this, it often looks like he is attacking the Reformed faith. I intend no such attack. Whatever weaknesses I might perceive in the Reformed tradition, I don’t see any better alternatives. I write this as someone who is happily in the Reformed tradition, loves the best of the Reformed tradition, and will gladly defend that tradition from perceived defective views. Now, on to the values…
- Election: My questions about election are different than most. I fully affirm, contra all forms of semi-Pelagianism, that God doesn’t need our permission to be God. I do believe God chooses who will be saved. However, there are some problems the way it is usually set up. If the identity of the Logos is fully-formed in eternal generation before the Pactum Salutis where the Father elects to save those into the Logos, then it’s hard to see how Nestorianism of some sort doesn’t follow. Better yet, however, is to see Jesus of Nazareth as the subject and object of election, and election as the event that distinguished God’s modes of being (hyparchos tropos). In any case, election must be affirmed as to allow the “offense of God’s actuality” (a phrase attributed to Robert W. Jenson).
- Assurance: Assurance represents a problem. How do I know that I am really assured? The problem is not that I with my fallible human knowledge can know infallibly. The real problem is that I exist in time yet God has promised that he will be God to me and that nothing can take me out of Jesus’s hands. To attack assurance on these grounds is simply to preach a doctrine straight from hell. That’s not to say that all tensions are gone, though. But that’s the key issue: tensions. Instead of viewing assurance in a metaphysical construct where I find myself against a metaphysical doctrine of election to which I do not often hear a response, I suggest, following Michael Horton’s project, to see assurance in an eschatological context. On a practical level, we can’t form our doctrine of assurance in such a way that ignores the most basic of Christian categories: simple faith and trust. Do you believe that Jesus did what he said he did? Do you trust that he cut a covenant which we see in the bread and the wine?
- Justification: I fully agree with WSC 33. Any deviation from that is fraught with huge problems. This is where I part company with N.T. Wright. Wright’s conclusions are bad. His historical framework and questions are quite good, and quite frankly, won’t go away. Further, and many critics of the Reformed faith don’t realize this, but Wright fully affirms the forensic, extra-nos aspect of justification against attempts to read it as theosis or transformation.
- Sola Scriptura: It’s fairly obvious that few know what this phrase really means, and that most certainly includes the Young, Restless, and Reformed crowd. It does not mean “The Bible Alone.” It does not mean the bible is our only authority. It means that the Bible is the norm that norms our norms. If you don’t know what that phrase means, you need to go read some more. The Bible is the norm–let’s call it Holy Scripture, actually–that creates and legitimizes subordinate norms. This not only means we may look to the Church and history, but that we must look. It protects us from silly positions like “The Bible is way too subjective, but for some reason, dozens of canons from councils, dozens of statements from fathers in different cultural milieus, those are objective.” As I tell people at Orthodox Bridge, I will gladly look to the church for advice and for theological grammar. It simply doesn’t follow, however, that the church suddenly has ipso facto infallible authority in everything over my soul.
On a more important note, and here is where my formulation is different, it is better to see Holy Scripture as the witness to God’s narrative: God’s actions in (ultimately) raising the Israelite from the dead. I prefer to see Holy Scripture in ultimately narratival terms as opposed to what I call “The Divine Database Model.” The latter is too platonic and plays into the hands of traditionalists who can then start asking difficult questions about the canon. My position, however, does an end-run around that by anchoring back into the Hebrew narrative, to which the New Testament documents witness, for the Hebrew canon was largely fixed prior to the existence of the Church (yes, I am aware of Stephen’s hinting of an OT church in Acts 7. I don’t think it is warranted to read too much into that one phrase).