Part One
Introduction
Last week, I led you through a brief history of the Church
immediately prior to the Reformation and I wrote about some of the consequences
of ignoring the lessons of history (See previous post--Title: Ignoring The Lessons Of History; Date:
8/22/12; Label: Theology). I'd like to stick with history and a two part series
on the Reformation and the Reformed Tradition to build off last week's lesson.
Last week's lesson painted a pretty bleak picture of the Church by the middle
of the 16th century. However, the dramatic upheaval experienced by the Church
during the 16th century eventually reached its crescendo in what is known as
the "Reformation." Martin Luther, perhaps the most
notable reformer, was far from the last. An abbreviated timeline of the
reformation’s beginning will help to introduce some prominent figures of the
Reformed Tradition and set the stage for what was considered to be a more
radical reformation. Just to clarify, the
Reformation described the overall movement that was set in motion by Luther in
order to correct corruption and gross deficiencies of the Church of his day.
The Reformed tradition is one of the many Protestant strains under the umbrella
of the larger Reformation movement.
Reformation
Trajectory
1517—Martin Luther posts 95 theses in protest
against the Catholic church’s saleable indulgences.
1518—Luther defends his theology in
Heidelberg; later he appears before Cardinal Cajetan at Augsburg, but refuses
to recant; in December, Frederick the Wise protects Luther from being handed
over to the head of the Catholic church in Rome.
1519—Luther
questions papal infallibility in a debate and begins New Testament sermon
series beginning a new era of biblical preaching.
Ulrich Zwingli begins
New Testament sermons and the Swiss reformation is born.
1520—Papal bull gives Luther 60 days to
recant or be excommunicated. Instead of recanting, Luther burned the papal
bull.
1521—Luther is excommunicated. At the
Diet of Worms, he refuses to recant and is condemned as a heretic and outlaw.
Before his punishment is carried out he is “kidnapped” and hidden at Wartburg
Castle and begins translating the New Testament into German.
1529—Diet of Speyer—Luther’s followers
are called “Protestants” for the first time.
Luther and Zwingli
attend Marburg Colloquy to try and reach an agreement on their differences on
the Lord’s Supper.
1531—Zwingli attempts to force French
support for the Reformation by allowing Swiss mercenaries to be hired.
Zwingli joins the
forces and is killed in battle.
1532—John
Calvin starts Protestant movement in France.
1533—Calvin flees Paris and undergoes a
dramatic conversion. Eventually passes through Geneva.
1536—Luther agrees to Wittenberg Concord
on the Lord’s Supper, in an attempt to resolve differences with other
reformers, but Zwingli’s followers do not accept it.
Calvin is persuaded by
Farel to remain in Geneva where he publishes the first edition of Institutes of
the Christian Religion.
1538—Calvin goes to Strasbourg where he
becomes the pastor to the French-speaking congregation.
1541—John Knox establishes Calvinist
Reformation in Scotland which would become the launching pad for the third wave
of reformed movements in America.[1]
History
and Theological Method
After
Luther, more radical reform in other parts of Europe can be traced to the work
of Zwingli and Calvin. Zwingli, probably unlike Luther, was somewhat influenced
by Christian humanism. However, John T. McNeill in his book The History & Character of Calvinism
writes,
“The
Reformed theologians diverged from the Christian humanists, who were their
teachers, in the emphasis they placed upon the majesty and holiness of God, the
sinfulness of man, and the gulf between God in His holiness and man in his
sinful state…The natural law itself is for Zwingli the working of God’s spirit
in man’s heart. Man’s nature has been ‘shattered’ in the Fall. For this reason
he required political government. Even the Christian, says Zwingli, remains a
wretch in God’s sight (Gottschelm)
and needs the compulsion of the state. Without divine aid, man can no more perceive
the being of God than a beetle the being of man.”[2]
However like Luther,
Zwingli insisted on strict biblical preaching. This practice would similarly be
followed by Calvin in Geneva. Although all these protestant movements are
interrelated with respect to their impact on the Reformation, the reformation
in Switzerland as led by Zwingli was not necessarily dependant on Luther
particularly with respect to its application of Scripture. John H. Leith, in his book titled, Introduction to the Reformed Tradition,
writes,
“In
the application of Scripture to the life of the church the Swiss reformers were
more radical than Luther. Luther wanted to eliminate from the life of the
church everything condemned by Scripture, but the Swiss insisted that every
Christian practice should have a positive warrant in Scripture. As Zwingli
himself wrote, ‘Eventually I came to the point where led by the Word and Spirit
of God I saw the need…to learn the doctrine of God direct from his own word.”[3]
Leith would go on to
write about Zwingli that, “The church would be cleansed and reformed by the
study and preaching of Scripture.”[4] As
was sometimes the case during Zwingli’s era, reform was not always limited to a
war of words or limited to the business of the church. Because the church and
the state were so closely related, reform of the church in many cases also
meant reform of the state which Zwingli believed was necessary as noted above
by McNeill. However, the state along with the church had the ability to defend
the status quo by force if necessary. Consequently, Zwingli was killed in
battle in 1531 alongside Swiss mercenaries while trying to force reform on the
French.
Following
Zwingli’s reformed tradition begun in Switzerland, was John Calvin. As noted
above, between 1533 when Calvin fled Paris and 1536 when he was in Geneva, he
underwent a dramatic conversion as is evident when he writes, “Since I was more
stubbornly addicted to the superstitions of the Papacy than to be easily drawn
out of that so deep mire, by a sudden conversion, He subdued my heart (too
hardened for my age) to docility.”[5]
While there were undoubtedly many people that planted seeds that ultimately led
to Calvin’s conversion, one of the more influential people in Calvin’s life was
William Farel. Farel was a French humanist and the leader of the reformation in
Geneva. He convinced Calvin to remain in Geneva to advance the work of
reformation he had begun there. Leith writes that “Under Calvin’s leadership
Geneva became the center of great influence in the development of Reformed
churches through Europe.”[6]
Like Zwingli, Calvin sought to reform the church by returning to the root of
its revelation—the Scriptures. This emphasis on the Scriptures along with other
significant theological developments would continue to be one of the
distinctives of the Reformed tradition throughout its history. While in Geneva
in 1536, Calvin would publish Institutes
of the Christian Religion, which would prove to be a seminal piece that
“affected the course of history.”[7] Institutes outlines a complete
systematized theology that has shaped and, in some cases, defined the Reformed
tradition throughout its history. For example, the Heidelberg Catechism drafted
in 1563 was influenced by Calvin’s theology and, “Became by some estimates ‘the
most popular and enduring confessional contribution of the Reformed Churches.’”[8]
Then, nearly a century later;
“In
1646 the Westminster Confession was issued. From the first article on Holy
Scripture to the thirty-third and final article on the Last Judgment, this
confession, along with the Westminster Catechism, is a classic statement of
scholastic Calvinism and has proven to be among the most influential and widely
used documents within the Reformed tradition.”[9]
No
doubt the development of the Reformed tradition has a rich heritage advanced by
the dynamic personalities of people like Zwingli and Calvin. However, we have
yet to address how the Reformed tradition’s theological method and biblical
hermeneutic has developed some of the theological distinctive by which it is
known. What follows, is an exposition on how the Reformed tradition develops
its understanding of what is commonly referred to within Protestantism as the
“Five Solas” (“Sola” in Latin having the approximate meaning of “only” or “alone”).
Sola Scriptura
– Scripture alone is the guide and source of authority.
Sola Christus
– Christ alone is the source of our salvation.
Sola Gratia
– Grace alone saves us.
Sola Fide
– Faith alone and not works is necessary for justification.
Sola Deo Gloria
– God alone is to be glorified in all we do.
Theological
Methodology and Distinctives
Methodology
In
order to fully grasp the distinctives of the Reformed tradition, it will be
helpful to first place those distinctive within a general theological framework
or “methodology.” For much of the Reformed tradition, that theological
methodology is known as covenant theology. Although not all those claiming to
be from the Reformed tradition hold to a strict covenantal theology, it has
historically been the grid through which the Reformed theologian has perceived
God’s outworking plan. To understand the relationship between the Reformed
tradition, covenant theology, Calvinism and distinctives of the Reformed
tradition, an analogy from nature might prove helpful. If, for example, the
Reformed tradition were a vast mountain range, covenant theology would be a
forest located on that range of mountains with Calvinism as a tree in the
forest located on that mountain range and the distinctives of the Reformed tradition the leaves on the tree in
the forest located on the mountain range. With that in mind, covenant theology
considers God’s dealings with humankind throughout history from Creation to
Consummation. Covenant theology is not a matter of doctrine or dogma but
instead is the organizational structure of the biblical text. In essence it is
the biblical hermeneutic for Reformed theologians who hold to a covenantal
theology. Theologically, there are three covenants: The covenant of redemption,
the covenant of works and the covenant of grace.
According
to Herman Hoeksema, “Almost all Reformed theologians since the seventeenth
century speak of a pactum salutis, a
covenant of redemption.”[10]
The covenant of redemption is generally understood to be the eternal agreement
within the Godhead of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit whereby it is agreed that
the Father appointed to Son to be redeemer of the elect by the power of the
Holy Spirit. Hoeksema makes reference to Scriptural support for the covenant of
redemption when he writes,
“Scriptural
ground for this covenant between the Father and the Son is also found in Luke
22:29: ‘And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me.’
Emphasis is laid on the original word for ‘appoint,’ which is diati,,qemai (to appoint by way of a testament or covenant).
From the same word is derived the term diaqh,kh
(covenant). Hence the text in Luke
means that by way of a covenant the kingdom is appointed unto Christ. Again,
since a covenant is understood to be an agreement between two parties, the
conclusion was that there was an eternal agreement between the Father and the
Son.”[11]
Following
the covenant of redemption is the covenant of works made between God and Adam
in the Garden of Eden. Under this covenant, life is promised in exchange for
obedience and death in exchange for disobedience. Adam, and as a consequence
all mankind, is condemned because Adam broke the covenant God made with him.
The covenant of works thereafter remains in place after the fall to operate as the
moral law. Hoeksema writes,
“When
Adam violated the covenant of God by willful disobedience, and God maintained
his covenant in Christ Jesus, the idea of the covenant did not change. The
covenant remained the living, eternal relationship of friendship, which is
possible because in Christ his people again become conformed to the image of
God. God maintains his covenant in spite of and even through sin. He
established his covenant in Christ, and in him that covenant can never be
destroyed or abolished.”[12]
Immediately
following Adams disobedience, God established his covenant of grace. This
covenant promises blessing for all people trusting in the promises of God
ultimately leading up to Christ and the ultimate fulfillment of all of God’s
promised blessings. Hoeksema writes about the covenant of grace that, “The
covenant of grace is the expression of the fact that God is not prepared to
give up on human beings, despite their apostasy from God.” The covenant of
grace is the foundation for God’s remaining covenants. The remaining covenants
are a subset of the covenant of grace primarily because they are given not
because they are earned but because of God’s graciousness. These covenants are
biblical as opposed to theological because they are explicitly identified in
the bible as opposed to implicitly understood as in the case of the
aforementioned theological covenants. The biblical covenants are: the Adamic
covenant whereby God upholds his covenant of grace in the promised seed of
Genesis 3:15; the Noahic covenant where by God’s grace, Noah and his family is
preserved through the deluge of the judgment flood and thereafter God’s
covenant promise not to bring such judgment upon the earth again; the Abrahamic
covenant whereby God gracefully establishes his covenant to make Abraham into a
great nation; the Mosaic covenant whereby God makes the promise that “I will
take you as my own people, and I will be your God” and this after he has, by
grace, delivered them from slavery in Egypt; the Davidic covenant whereby God establishes
a kingdom and throne through David and his lineage; the New Covenant whereby
God ultimately fulfills the promises, in their fullest sense, of all the
previous covenants he made through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus
Christ.
Since
the Reformed tradition is part of the greater Protestant landscape, it
recognizes Baptism and the Lord’s Supper as the only two sacraments. These
sacraments are a sign and seal of the covenant of grace. The Lord’s Supper is
understood as the mysterious participation in the real presence of Christ as
mediated by the Holy Spirit. Paedobaptism or infant baptism is advocated by
many covenant theologians as a sign of the promise extended to the family of
believers (Acts 2:38-39) replacing the old covenant sign of circumcision.
However, some Baptist covenant theologians feel that only those who can make a
public profession of faith first should be baptized. It is against this
covenantal backdrop that the theological distinctives of the Reformed tradition
take shape and it is within this larger context that we can begin to better
understand some of those distinctives which we will review in detail in Part
Two of our lesson.
Alternative
Considerations on Covenant Theology
Although
understanding the unfolding revelation of the bible in the context of covenant
theology has considerable merit, it is not the only theological method used to
understand how God sovereignly governs the affairs of his creation. For
example, Dispensational theology sees biblical events as broken up into
distinct and successive eras. This method of “doing” theology is not without
its merit as well. Covenant theology seems inordinately obsessed with finding a
unifying theme or continuity in the sixty-six books of the bible. The covenantalist
too easily links biblical events simply because they resemble one another. For
example, the Reformed theologian sees baptism in the New Testament as a
replacement of the covenant of circumcision from the Old Testament. They are
similar insofar as they are a sign pointing to something else but baptism is
never formally connected to circumcision in any way in Scripture. This
insistence on a biblical continuity is one of the weaknesses of covenant
theology. Unfortunately, this insistence that all biblical events develop into
a unified whole forces the biblical reader into a position of having to
discount former covenants as being less effectual than succeeding covenants.
The covenant theologian neglects the possibility that former covenants may
still be effectual and are yet to be fully realized. For example, covenant
theology melds Old Testament Israel and the New Testament Church in such a way
that God’s promises for Israel can now be claimed by the Church. This approach
fails to pass the smell test of a simple reading of the biblical text. Instead,
covenant theology presupposes the Church as God’s ultimate goal and as such
must harmonize all biblical events into a unified theology that adheres to
those presuppositions. However, it is not entirely unreasonable to insist that
God deals with his creation differently at different times in history. If God
promises that he has a plan for Israel then it seems unreasonable to believe
that the Church can now claim that promise as their own in Israel’s stead.
Part
One Summary
While last week’s lesson painted a rather bleak picture
of the Church and its practices, we can see from this Part One that out of
something broken, something magnificent was being constructed. The word
“Reformation” has as its root the word “form.” “Form” as a noun is the shape of
something. “Form” as a verb is to shape, build or construct something. I’m not
trying to insult you with a simple English lesson and I’m hardly considered an
accomplished grammarian. However, we throw words around these days without
giving them much thought and when we talk about the Reformation and
Protestantism that grew out of it, many people think it was the creation of
something new. That’s why the meaning of words is so important. “Reform” is a
verb that means to form again—not form anew. Let me illustrate: One of the very
first things my girls and I do when we work with church groups who travel to
Mexico on short-term mission trips to build homes is to work with them closely
in the early stages of their house build to construct what will eventually be
the form for the house’s cement foundation. Although the design and
construction is quite effective, it is nevertheless fairly crude and somewhat
prone to distortion as the ground inside and outside the form is prepared for
the cement foundation. Add to this 20-30 people stepping on it and running over
it with wheelbarrows and the form is often very distorted when it is time to
pour the cement into the form. Therefore, it is necessary to reshape the boards
of the foundation form—it must be “reformed.” In doing so, we don’t build a new
form, we reform what was at one point correct but became distorted and damaged
over time. It was this way as well with the Reformation. Luther never intended
to create something new, he just wanted to reform what was at one point correct
but became distorted and damaged over time. Once reformed, the Church much like
the houses built in Mexico could be built on A Firm Foundation.
[1] Friends
of William Tyndale, A Reformation Time
Line, [on-line], available from http://www.williamtyndale.com/0reformationtimeline.htm#Menu:%20Reformation%20Timeline,
Internet, accessed April 25, 2008.
[2] John T.
McNeill, The History & Character of
Calvinism, (Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 1957) p. 76
[3] John H.
Leith, Introduction to the Reformed
Tradition, (John Knox Press, Atlanta, GA, 1981) p. 34
[4] Ibid.,
p.34
[5] McNeill,
The History & Character of Calvinism,
p. 108
[6] Leith, Introduction to the Reformed Tradition,
p. 36
[7] McNeill,
The History & Character of Calvinism,
p. 119
[8] W. David
Buschart, Exploring Protestant Traditions,
(InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL, 2006) p.88
[9] Ibid.,
p. 90
[10] Herman
Hoeksema, Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 1,
(Reformed Free Publishing Association, Grandville, MI, 2004) p. 403
[11] Ibid.,
p. 405
[12] Ibid.,
p. 464
No comments:
Post a Comment