Since we’ve been talking a little lately about what it means to be “confessional,” I figured I’d offer these brief thoughts on what it means for me at least, as a catholic and Reformed Christian, to be confessional. This is from a comment which I left this morning over on Sacramental Piety .
The historic Reformed confessions are not to be adhered to in a slavish manner, with the church simply going along reciting the same old things over and over as though our confessions are on a par with Scripture. To be a confessing church is to be a church that confesses here and now, and this necessitates, at times, making progress on earlier forms of thought. Schaff has rightly pointed out that this idea of progress upon older forms is indeed a fundamentally Protestant principle, for without the validity of progress in light of Scripture and the ongoing tradition of the Church (which did not reach canonization in 1647), the Reformers had no right to do what they did: that is, question hundreds of years of Medieval dogma and reformulate church doctrine in the light of Scripture.
Thus, we must continue to build on their work, and continue confessing our faith. Just because someone disagrees with a Reformer on this or that point, or articulation of a common point (and the Reformers were no monolithic bunch, anyway), does not necessarily imply that one is an enemy of the Reformation. In fact, if the views which such a person is advocating are Scriptural, it may even be the case that said one’s agenda is more in line with the spirit of the Reformers than detractors who claim the title “confessional.”
Now, let me be clear: Confessing and Reformation are acts of the Church. It takes a Church to confess and it therefore takes a Church to revise a confession. If a man brings to the table a doctrine with Scriptural arguments in support of it, which he claims should lead to a revision of our confessional standards, and the confessing Church (represented by her appointed presbyters) as a whole finds those arguments lacking, then said man ought to submit to the faith of the community. However, this does not mean that we ought to reject all such attempts out of hand as being “opposed to the confession” or “against the Reformation,” for the Reformed confessions themselves were never meant to operate in this way, and the Reformation itself was never about holding up a certain stage in the church’s theological development as the standard by which all later developments might be judged. This right is reserved for Scripture.
The Reformed churches must never, of course, abandon their doctrinal heritage or the theological trajectory set by our forefathers. But we must be a continually confessing and Reforming church, building upon the thought of past ages with a perceptive eye turned to the present and the future. As a committed Presbyterian, I believe that Wesminster Confession 1.10 was included in the Standards of my particular tradition for precisely this purpose.
Jonathan, have you ever read Dogmatics in Outline? In the fourth chapter, on the public nature of faith, Barth interchanges the word “confession” with the church’s “public responsibility. He already laid down the confessional nature of theology in the sense of its being bound by Church standards in the first chapter, but here he defines a confessing church in much the same way you have.
Jedidiah – Barth is a very fine example, in part for the fact of his making a distinction between “Christian Dogmatics” and “Church Dogmatics”, wherein he describes the latter as “what the church confesses the Bible to teach.”
This distinction, simply noted in the title of his magnum opus, is lost on many Reformed guys today who ride around willy-nilly, making vaunted claims about the gospel and how it is being compromised by this or that Reformed group.
A subtle shift, but one which speaks of a fundamental humility in Barth, leading him to speak of “Church” dogmatics….
Hey Jedidiah,
No I haven’t, but thanks for pointing that out to me.
Unfortunately, I haven’t read nearly as much Barth as I would like: just various selections from CD.
Jonathan, Good article.
What happens if someone repudiates the theological trajectory set in motion by the founders of the Reformed tradition?
Which leads me to ask also: how do we identify this trajectory and what constitutes legitimate development?
Andrew,
Good questions, and one’s I unfortunatley am currently without adequate time to address in the way they ought to be addressed. But briefly…
To the first: Quite simply, such a one would not be Reformed. The seriousness of such a “repudiation” would have to be handled on a case by case basis. Repudiation of certain articles may be more serious than repudiation of others. Denial of the doctrine of the Trinity, for instance, would make one a heretic, while denials of lesser articles may not carry such a charge. The Reformed have never held that being outside of the Reformed tradition makes one a non-Christian. They do, however, claim that their particular understanding of the faith is the closest approximation which the universal Church currently possesses to the teaching of Holy Scripture
To the second: We determine the trajectory by looking at the historical context and dogmatic content of the major Reformed Confessions and the writings of the formative thinkers of the tradition. Thankfully, decisions concerning what does and does not constitute a legitimate development is a province left for the Reformed churches, and not seminary students. In my thinking, though, an illegitimate development would be any attempt to overthrow certain central tenets of Reformed thought; for example: justification by faith, sola scriptura, divine sovereignty, covenantal theology, the sacramental distinction between sign and reality, etc. However, even with regard to these central themes, room must be left for progress to be made in light of the Reformed churches’ ongoing investigation into Scripture, with self-conscious reflection on their own theological tradition.
Jonathan/ et al.,
These thoughts are offered as a reflection on the discussion under Steven’s “Reformed Theologies” post. I thought it would be appropriate to do so since your own post here was inspired, at least in part, by that discussion.
I find it interesting you did not fail to include the sacramental distinction between sign and reality in your list of central Reformed tenets. Rather than emphasizing sacramental union effected by God’s sovereign power, it seems the Reformed tradition set in motion in the sixteenth century is especially prone to divide what has been joined by divine appointment. I believe Nevin himself resisted this trend (though I don’t claim to be as familiar with his thought as you must be), and denounce it as contrary to the force of Holy Scripture.
The “disjunction”, as Peter would have it, of sign and reality is, in my view, the cause of the spiritual torpor and ineffectiveness so characteristic of the Christian profession today. Too many think the gifts (ministries and powers) Christ gave his Church were lost with the passing of the apostles or shortly afterwards. And so, somehow, faith has dimmed and love grown cold. We do not do the works of our fathers in the faith.
What most of us don’t contemplate, it seems, is that at any time our Sovereign Lord chooses, he may pour his Spirit out upon his people to manifest his mighty power. I know of no solid biblical case that prophecy, spiritual vision, miraculous healing, and extraordinary judicial punishments (1 Cor. 11:30-2) are inoperative in the present dispensation. Do we have the faith to desire and ask for such an anointing?
The dialectical opposition between nature and grace must be exposed for what it is: the unregenerate mind’s doubt that God is truly active in the world, that Christ’s flesh imparts Life to the world. (I’m not calling any contributors here unbelievers; I’m suggesting we’ve allowed our thinking to be shaped by faithless reason to an alarming degree.)
So, I don’t think it’s appropriate to use the language of disjunction to refer to the relation between sign and reality. The sign is now part of the reality for the old typological system has ceased. God came down to earth and Creation has been assumed by Heaven. If systematic speech does not acknowledge this world-shattering redemptive development it is false speech, the speech of antichrist.
Using counter examples (e.g., not all the baptized persevere to the end) without differentiating between God’s effectual power in the sacrament objectively and our own worthy or unworthy subjective reception constitutes an illegitimate attempt to cast doubt upon the reliability of sacraments in general. Likewise, arguing the visible Church isn’t properly the Body of Christ because particular churches or individuals fall away seems to me to be a denial of the New Covenant promises (Jer. 31:31-7; cf. Matt. 16:18).
The Creator-creature distinction (a very important principle) must not be construed as an absolute disjunction between the divine and all that is creaturely. If we were to adopt such an extreme principle, we would in effect be denying the possibility of human knowledge the Incarnation, and salvation itself. There must be some commonality between deity, the divine Image, and participations in that Image. Sure, there is discontinuity, but such should not be used to negate the real shared qualities that exist. All true created analogs of the divine must be able to share in divine qualities in ways appropriate for created beings.
Jesus Christ is not a “sign and effect” of the Son of God; He is the Son of God. The Person of the divine Son is actually present in Jesus’ humanity.
The Holy Scripture is not a “sign and effect” of the Word of God; it is a real manifestation of that Word.
The waters of Christian Baptism are not “signs and effects” of regeneration; they truly are the regenerating streams of life that flow out from the Heavenly throne.
The consecrated bread and wine aren’t “signs and effects” of Christ’s body and blood; the eyes of faith see that they are the true body and blood of Christ broken and shed for the remission of sins.
Therefore, participation in the Lord’s Supper is not symbolic of our communion with Christ; it is a real manifestation of Christ’s Person/work: to the believer, for salvation; to the unbeliever, for judgment. The Supper is valid quite independently of whether a particular individual believes or not.
Finally, the ekklesia established and formed by Christ, upon whom the Spirit came at Pentecost, is not *relatively* the Church; it is *properly* the Church growing into the full stature of the Body of Christ. Just as a child is as fully a human being as an adult, so the immature Church is just as much the Church as the Eschatological Church will be. This is what Sola Fide means: the presence of saving faith makes one a Christian though he may have much sanctification to undergo.
Faith may be the primary qualification for union with Christ, but standing alone, faith is insufficient. Faith leads us on to desire Christian Baptism, to feed on Christ in his Supper, to do Christ’s works, and to love our brethren. Without these things perfecting faith, faith must ultimately wither and perish. All these things shape us in greater conformity to our Savior and render us ontologically fit to enter Heaven.
Theoretically (i.e., if true to its principles), the disjunctive church is a church without works, without confidence in God’s promises and unequipped to do combat against the world, the flesh and the Devil. The disjunctive church is the unbiblical opposite of the catholic Church, which is the true Church against whom the gates of Hell will not prevail.
Well, no doubt I’ve misrepresented Peter to some degree here. I’ll let him (or anyone else) attempt to show how I might be mistaken on any of these points, or how definitions might be made more precise, etc. I also confess my own lack of faith in these matters.
God’s blessing be upon you all!
Andrew
Andrew,
Actually, I don’t think Nevin differed at all in substance from sixteenth century Reformed formulations of the sacraments offered by Calvin and those confessions which bear the imprint of his thought. He differed from Zwingli, Bullinger, and most likely Cranmer as well in certain respects, but he held in common with them a firm conviction in the distinction between sign and reality, the rejection of the manducatio impiorum, and the rejection of a localized presence. In short, his view was that of Calvin, with some German Romanticism mixed in.
I hit on the distinction in my very abbreviated list because I do not deny folks like Bullinger or Cranmer a place at the Reformed table. However, even those Reformed doctors held to a sacramental union between sign and reality in some form. None of the sixteenth century Reformed (with the arguable exception of Zwingli) advocated a separation. Where I think Nevin went astray was in his denial of a place in the Reformed tradition to anyone who held a lower view of the sacraments than he did.
As to your other points, maybe I’ll have some time to respond later. Let me just say now that, if the Reformed tradition is the focus of your assault there, I do think you have caricatured things a bit.
Good morning, Jonathan,
I had no intention of attacking the Reformed tradition per se, but essentially to point out an erroneous tendency within the tradition… All traditions have tendencies that can lead to heterodoxy if taken to an extreme.
At the risk of setting up a straw man, my argument is that persons/ churches primarily animated by the “disjunctive” principle are anti-catholic in spirit.
True catholicity, in my view, is the effort to give expression to a biblical universalism (Christ’s redemption of the world and sovereign reign over all things) and unification principle (all creation reconciled through the cross). Catholicity, on this view, is incompatible with anti-sacramental disjunctive heresy.
However, while my sacramentology is high, I can have happy fellowship with others who hold a more Zwinglian view as long as their disjunctive tendencies are restrained.
Andrew,
I will write more on this later, but in brief: if you will recall, I spoke of *both* the conjunctive and the disjunctive aspects of a sacrament, and said that both things go into the making of one. Hardly an overemphasis on the disjunctive.
Further, while I understand your point and in some measure agree, I think your emphasis on continuity is very much an overstatement (something you seem to willing to grant might be the case), and we will need to be clear about the meaning of words before we go much farther on. For instance, when I say that any visible ekklesia is relatively the church, I am following the overwhelming consensus of Protestant doctors, who did not, just as I do not, make the visible churches mere pictures of the mystical body. But neither are those visible assemblies corporate realities of the same order as, let alone are the same thing as, the mystical body of the Lord. That latter is, as such, not directly visible. You however, seem to be positing a single, visible church. In a way, one can speak of such a thing: the catholic church. It isn’t the mystical body either, nor is it a polity or institution, but it is the subject of promises that no particular church, as such, possesses in itself. We’d have to spend some time on these principles before we could be sure we aren’t talking at cross-purposes.
Even more to the point, we’d have to talk about “symbol”, “sign”, et c.
peace
P
Jonathan, you wrote that “If a man brings to the table a doctrine with Scriptural arguments in support of it, which he claims should lead to a revision of our confessional standards, and the confessing Church (represented by her appointed presbyters) as a whole finds those arguments lacking, then said man ought to submit to the faith of the community.”
I’m not sure what this means. We have a moral obligation to submit to those in authority over us, and presbyters in the PCA, for example, vow to submit to the brethren in the Lord. This can be accomplished, as Calvin explains in his Institutes, by conforming our outward conduct to the requirements of the church’s regulations while remaining free to believe according to our consciences within our hearts. Of course, there are limits to that freedom of belief — we can’t use freedom as a cloak for vice, and the church can censure clearly unbiblical doctrine.
But so long as we are holding our non-heretical beliefs in good faith and in a way that is respectful of the broader church and conforming ourselves to the liturgical and other regulations of the church, are we not submitting? How can the church’s refusal to accept our proposed changes to her confession have any necessary effect on our sincere faith, other than to give us pause for reconsidering it and to call us to continued conformity of our bodies to her laws?
Hey Jordan,
My comment was intended with specific reference to confessional revision, not to personal beliefs. In this context, my statement, “submit to the faith of the community” means something like “accept the confession of the community as it stands, while taking an acknowledged exception in a particular area.” It does not mean, “forfeit your personal convictions.”
Hi Peter,
Thanks for the response. I do appreciate that you spoke of a conjunctive aspect of sacrament, and for a fair assessment of your overall position I should have mentioned it. However that may be, my point is that opposing sign and reality in dialectical antagonism to one another is a de-creative act perpetrated by faithless reason. The sign and the reality are both created by God and united to “fit” one another perfectly. No man has the right to separate what God has joined. I am unhappy with, and vigorously oppose, any and all “disjunctive” language employed to characterize the relation of the sacramental elements in themselves.
The sacraments are not merely generally reliable; they infallibly convey the benefits of redemption. Even if we are unfaithful, God is faithful and his gifts truly proffer what they signify, as I’m sure you’d agree Therefore, the only legitimate “disjunction” to be allowed in this matter is between God’s faithfulness in the New Covenant sacraments versus our unfaithful/ unworthy reception of the same.
In your reply, Peter, you wrote, “the visible churches [are not] mere pictures of the mystical body. But neither are those visible assemblies corporate realities of the same order as, let alone are the same thing as, the mystical body of the Lord.” And you claim this view to be the “overwhelming consensus of Protestant doctors.”
Here you have set up a dialectic between “mere pictures” or unreal shadows on one hand, and the ultimate reality of the mystical Body on the other. But is this the right way to frame the issue?
According to your scholastic method, the truth about the historical catholic Church must be somewhere in between mere shadow and the ultimate reality. This here is the issue whether your approach allows for genuine progress in corporate sanctification, or whether we are forced into an immobile stasis between two metaphysical extremes. Must the two sides be forever played off against each other? Further, if the synthesis you are proposing ambiguates clear Scriptural statements about the metaphysical status of the historical catholic Church, we have a problem.
What I’m inferring from your statements is that the visible Church (the aggregate of all historical churches) participates in the Mystical Body but is not identifiable with it. You appear to be saying the visible Church both is and is not the true Church (in different senses, of course). Are you saying individual churches are mere members of the Body and therefore not the whole Body (with which I agree), or are you going beyond this and saying they aren’t really members of the Body at all? If so, how can you square this with St. Paul’s teachings in 1 Cor. 12 and Eph. 4?
It’s true I’m positing a single, visible Church. The one true Church is visible on earth, but more clearly seen from the Heavenly perspective. The same Church that sojourns on earth during the interadvental period will be gloriously transformed into the Consummated Church when all her members are visibly reunited. I’m positing a continuity of identity between the Church Expectant and the Church Triumphant here. There is one Body that goes through developmental stages. The Mystical Church is not a disembodied thing; it is a living, concrete reality.
Also, there is an institutional/political aspect of the Church: God gave particular offices and ministries for the perfecting of the Body (1 Cor. 12:27ff.; Eph. 4:11-14). There is a divinely established organization of the members in the Body (1 Cor. 12:18). This suggests formal office, structures of command and obedience (authority), and orderly social configuration (hierarchy). Of course, all this must be qualified by the ideal of the greatest serving the least carried out with the requisite humility exemplified and commanded by our Lord Jesus. Christ ascended and gave gifts to men to ensure the Church’s ultimate maturation (Eph. 4:8ff.).
I’ll admit there’s no guarantee any particular member of the Body will persevere to the end. Such depends on God’s secret decree of final perseverance. However, I think you acknowledge, God’s Word indicates that the historical catholic Church shall persevere till Christ’s coming.
Scholasticism does a great job of breaking things apart and analyzing details. My concern is whether your theological method is able to put the parts back together again and have one Church, or do you end up with two (or more) churches and broken sacraments? Is your approach able to resolve the apparent antinomies of the dialectical oppositions you pose and move toward real catholicity?
A final note about sacramental signs and symbols. I think if we’re going to speak biblically, we must acknowledge the differences between the Old Testament rites that could not accomplish redemption or cleanse the conscience, the *symbolic* acts of Christ that did, and the New Testament rites that actually convey redemptive benefits and inspire the confidence that sins have actually been remitted.
Thanks for the opportunity to dialogue.
Andrew
Andrew,
We should probably discuss one thing at a time: your thoughts here are all interesting, but sweep very widely.
I take it you will be able to see that I think you are begging the question somewhat by defining distinction between sign and signified as “dialectical opposition” (and in fact, there is some question-begging going on to when you suppose that the terms are sign and reality, rather than sign and signified; since both the latter are “reality”). The language of signum et res is of course common usage in the whole Western Catholic tradition, shared by Papalists and Protestants alike. It derives from Augustine; and, if you will read the early Fathers as the Reformed divines did, you will a great many of them speaking quite clearly of type, figure, sign, et c.
The signs do exhibit and convey what they signify, insofar as they are Gospel; as does the spoken Word. And with regard to this, you would be right to say that the primary distinction of importance is between faithful and unfaithful encounter. But, insofar as the signs signify spiritual effects, they do not infallibly convey those, precisely because of the possibility of unfaithful encounter.
Further, the intended effects of the sacraments are in the believer, either personally or corporately considered. Regeneration is not said of the waters, but of the soul washed. Likewise, the truth is that union with the body of the Lord is something which pertains to the believer. However, due to superstitious imagination, the elements of the feast became fetishized, and thus by a kind of projection were thought to be the true locus of Christ’s body. Here, confusion of sign and signified led to the most wretched distortions.
But again, we would have to hash out the terms in this matter.
On ecclesiology:
I’m not entirely sure you’ve read me very closely. You ask whether I’ve set up a dialectic between mere pictures on the one hand, and reality on the other; and yet in the very quote you’re remarking upon (which you helpfully cite above), it is quite clear that I am explicitly *rejecting* such a dichotomy, and arguing for a methexis-state of the particular visible churches wth regard to the una sancta.
I would not call the visible church the aggregate of the particular churches: particularity is all there is of visibility in that sense. We can however call the visible churches, taken together across space and time, the Catholic Church; but that Catholic Church is not, as such, visible, since it occupies more than one time. But, contrary to the view you’ve stated here, I am quite happy saying that any given particular church *is* the catholic church, whole and entire, just as the soul is whole and entire in any part of the body. The visible churches are not mere parts of a bigger, visible, meta-congregation. They are however the body or relative loci of the mystical church, which is the communion of those who are reborn in the Spirit and united with their Lord.
This is true not only because the particular churches include truly faithful people, but because they are the site of Word and Rite, where God truly and infallibly offers Himself to be laid hold of. In other words, the particular church is domus dei.
As to your historical and political concerns, the dichotomy you posit is unreal. For progressive historical sanctification (a view of history which is not de fide, by the way) to be possible, there need not be a visible, corporate, institutional subject possessing political continuity as the subject of that. There need only be increased outpouring of the Spirit, and Providential disposition of people to be its recipients and bearers.
Christ is whole and perfectly holy; and his saints grow in likeness to Him in the measure that they can. But there is no corporate persona (a political and now mercantile idea which is a legal fiction) *between* the Person of Christ one the one hand, and the persons of his saints, on the other, which somehow also grows in likeness to Him. Regarded as His body, His saints are in a way Him; regarded distinctly, they are sanctified John, James, Robert, etc (admitting the inseparably social and historical makeup of actual persons). But there is no in-between aggregate colossus persona which is a saint; and in fact, there is no such thing at all.
But perhaps we are talking at cross-purposes. We are certainly speaking too broadly and too generally. I understand your basic concerns, I think, and even share some of them. But just as you see too strong an emphasis on the distinction between sign and signified as de-creative, I see a confusion of sign and signified as de-creative. It destroys the goodness of creation and makes of a supposed tertium quid the “real” numinous world, voiding the glory of creation; and that confusion-produced tertium quid also eclipses the light of God, since it falsely locates and circumscribes the heavenly.
To explain this fully, of course, would require argument; an argument I am willing to make.
peace
P
Hello Andy:
I am sympathetic to much of what you lay out here in this decrying of some of the [latent or patent?] tendencies of the Reformed tradition.
Having said that, I wonder if some of your own premises might bear closer examining.
For example, the notion that miracles and extraordinary gifts were necessary for the confirmation of/spread of the gospel in the apostolic age, but have since ceased….
While this view is associated with scholastic Protestant orthodoxy and later Reformed thinkers up through the present, is it limited to such, or did not also some of the early Fathers articulate such things?
Similarly, what of the sad empirical evidence of the various fringe groups down through the annals of history who argued for a restoration of apostolic gifts, the so-called 5-fold office being extant today. In a sense, the argument on behalf of the gifts and offices being extant yet largely inoperative due to the unbelief of the church, is eerily similar to the argument of “Reformed” Baptists and others who argue that the proper administration of the “New Covenant” sign [hearing these guys speak about "covenant" is often amusing] of baptism effectively disappeared for centuries, due to the “unbelief” and “apostasy” of, well, most of Christendom.
Then also the dichotomy you raise between Old and New, and the allegation that the sacraments for the Reformed Christian bear no greater efficacy than those under Moses…
The interrelation between Old/New is a very complex subject, insofar as some have taken the disjunction not so much as chronologial [chronos] time, but rather, qualitative [kairos] time. Perhaps that’s fanciful exegesis and special pleading, but if we assume the former view, it seems that in such locus classicii as I Cor. 10:1-13, Paul’s exhortation is based on the closest possibily symmetry between the rites of the Old and the New, arguing that even as most of the Israelites perished in the wilderness, notwithstanding their passing through the watery deliverance, so the same could befall the Corinthian saints…
Finally, the distinction between sign/what it effects or [if others prefer] signifies, I think we would concur that a wide range of credible men have noted this distinction, such as Augustine, Hooker, arguably Paul himself in his whole “outward/inward” polemic in Rom. 2 [I don't think that the "Jew inwardly vs. Jew outwardly" polemic, the "Israel within Israel" is done away with now, insofar as many who are "baptized" have never been "baptized in heart" to strictly follow Paul's own presentation of this grave danger that exists within the covenant community.
Having said all of this, I've not done sufficient justice to the entirety of your assessment of things, and let me say as well that I think the critique is not without its merits. Reformed Christianity in America at least [this is what I am familiar with, as a situated believer bound by all kinds of limitations of sin, time, and space] has shown itself largely powerless to produce and maintain an embodied, communal piety. Instead, fracturing after fracturing continues to occur, in part no doubt, for the loss, as you say, of any semblance of an “objective covenant”, not to mention other errata that continue to dog and plague us with no signs of immediate cessation……
Hi Peter,
I trust you had a good weekend. Since your reply was an excellent on all levels, I’d like to address your comments point-by-point, highlighting where we might explore these matters in more depth.
1. On the contrary, I do not define, per se, the distinction between sign and signified as “dialectical opposition.” It was you, Peter, who characterized the relation as “disjunctive” in some sense. Perhaps now would be a good time to discuss more fully what you meant, lest I mistakenly attribute a view to you that you do not hold.
2. Certainly, a sign or outward rite may be distinguished from all that it signifies/effects for didactic purposes and practical necessities. Examples of the latter could involve irregular rite or even the mere presence of “desire” in extreme circumstances.
What I object to is the Platonized conception of sign as a material representation of a purely spiritual reality (thereby opposing matter to spirit) and the Judaistic reduction of New Covenant sacrament to Old Testament type, the Greek and Jewish errors respectively.
If all that has occurred is an exchange of one type for another or, one figure for another, then anti-sacramentalists are correct to charge that sacramental Christianity is Judaized Christianity.
3. I’d argue it is appropriate to distinguish between what sacraments infallibly “offer” and what they infallibly “convey” because some things are infallibly conveyed, but others are only offered. We could talk more about this if you’d like. A question I have, Peter, is how do you distinguish between the gospel and legal functions of sacraments?
4. Since an entire ecclesial community (which includes unfaithful members) is involved when sacraments are publicly performed/ administered, I do not grant that only believers are the intended recipients of divine activity through sacramental means. At the very least, the unbelieving receive greater damnation because they are made more liable. But more than this, the Eucharist is the focal point of ecclesial unity, around which God gathers all those who call on Jesus’ name, whether truly or falsely. The formation of the historical Church is a real event in our tri-dimensional material and social world.
I disagree also that baptismal waters only signify regeneration and are not properly called regenerative waters. The water and blood that flowed from Christ’s side were not impotent signs, but possessed inherent virtue. By God’s word the regenerative virtue of Christ’s life is metaphysically joined to the natural substance of consecrated water.
And if Peter’s shadow could effect miraculous healing, it is fitting God should use holy water to perform miracles. There are records of such events in the post-apostolic era, and I have no cause to doubt they happened. This is the meaning of Scripture, I believe, when it attributes restorative and regenerative virtues to the waters that flow from the New Jerusalem to earth. I do not place a priori limits on God’s sovereign work through sacramental means.
I also note here that “superstitions” and “wretched distortions” can be understood to be illegitimate excesses in folk practice rather than essential to pre-Reformation Catholic theology. There was no shortage of careful theological thinkers before the Reformation who were appalled by certain practices. Besides, all theology, even good theology, can be taken to extremes and misused.
As for ecclesiology:
5. Yes, I’m aware you’re attempting to chart a course between the opposite errors of total identification and complete separation of the Universal and Visible Churches (oops). My critique, or rather, my worry, is whether you in fact end up with two (or more—it appears) churches. This seems like a deal-breaker to me. To utilize a concept from theater (methexis) in order to clarify the metaphysical relation doesn’t seem especially helpful either. The particular visible churches don’t merely act in imitation of what the Universal Church does but are actual instantiations of it.
I believe it’s true that “any given particular church *is* the catholic church”, but the way you define “Catholic Church” seems to exclude the possibility that the Church can ever authoritatively pronounce on any matter at any historical moment. The Gospel will only be, therefore, at best, the correct opinion of whoever happens to be preaching it.
I will grant you, Peter, that it is proper to speak of visible churches as relative loci in relation to Heaven as the proper locus (where Christ is supremely present) of the Universal Church.
I am not clear why, however, I’m supposed to view the particular church alone as domus dei on earth. I do not posit a corporate persona between Christ and his saints. Christ possesses a prime royal priesthood in which his people share. Furthermore, I don’t understand why, if particular churches can be real loci of the Catholic Church, the aggregate of all visible churches at a particular time can’t also be as well.
We can leave aside the question of progressive historical sanctification for now. I understand your point, but don’t agree.
6. Finally, thank you for this exchange. I have learned a lot already and look forward to more fruitful dialogue. As you must well be aware by this time, I see a much greater danger in too strong an emphasis on the distinction of sign/ signified than the reverse. Creation was created to find its end and completion in God’s glory, to achieve glorification, or theosis, if you will. Christ’s humanity neither falsely located nor circumscribed the divine Son. So, I hope you may grant on the incarnational analogy it is *possible* to understand the relation of sign and signified in a less abstract way.
Thanks for your time,
Andrew
P.S. Hoss, I’m coming for you next! ; )
“To” or “for”? LOL!
Andrew,
More later: but a few brief points for now, so that I won’t have to mention them in a longer reply.
1. The phrase dialectical opposition was something you attributed to the language of sign and signified; but I will leave that rest. In brief, the disjunction I am referring to is simply that between sign and signified. This is the common language of Christendom, even of the early Fathers; and those who would wish to make sacraments a category of monophysite entities, need to explain how sign and signified are in no way different in such, or how spirit and matter are indistinguishable in such, and so on.
2. On the baptismal waters: I think you might have missed my point. It was with regard to the Eucharist. What I said was that no one says the waters themselves are “regenerated” as if they were a spiritual subject, that is, personal: the effect, “regeneration” is located in the washed believer. Likewise (so my argument went) real membership in Christ’s body is something belonging to believers, not to a piece of bread.
3. Lastly, on ecclesiology: the Greek term I used, “methexis”, means “participation”; but your reference to theater, and to imitation, suggests to me that you were rather thinking of the word “mimesis” as you wrote; but “mimesis” indicates a very different thing than “methexis”. Methexis most commonly means a real sharing of reality.
peace
P
Dear Hoss,
I don’t think I’ve ever addressed you personally in this forum. I’d like to say at the outset that I enjoy your wit, insight, humor, and yes—humility and genuine care for our Lord’s honor. Keep up the good work. BTW, I tried sending you an email last week, but am not sure if you got it. No doubt you’re a busy man—I’m sure we all have difficulty keeping up with our blogging commitments along with our “real” responsibilities.
On the cessationism/ continuationism controversy:
I hold no truck with Pentecostal-charismania; the widespread derangement pervading such circles is evident to everyone. From youth, I was indoctrinated in the classical Dispensationalist full cessationist position. Later, as a budding Reformed rationalist I became familiar with the confirmation of Scripture argument.
However, a number of factors have led me to adopt a cautious openness to continuationism.
1. I have a pious grandmother (and known of quite a few others) who has demonstrated extraordinary wisdom and insight. There is a long tradition in evangelical Christianity that recognizes the reality of such extraordinary “leadings” of the Lord. Besides this, there have probably been millions of such spiritual “grandmothers” hailing from every known Christian tradition. I just don’t believe these phenomena can all be attributed to enthusiastic (or worse) psychological delusion. Admittedly, this is anecdotal evidence, but the miraculous by definition is not subject to quantification and scientific analysis.
2. I have read and heard of many credible testimonies (both Christian and non) of supernatural occurrences in the third-world spiritual borderland between Christian and pagan civilization. Concentric cessationism, the view that extraordinary/ miraculous gifts are completely relegated to this sphere, seems to me to be a view that can neither be proved nor disproved.
3. Demon possession occurs; therefore the need for exorcism still exists. There had better be competent exorcists out there, or we have real problems!
4. The church fathers spoke of the rarity of some sorts of gifts in their time but also spoke of the continuation of other sorts of what we would call extraordinary or miraculous gifts. (see below)
5. The OT prophecies of the New Covenant/ Church age appear to teach that the Spirit’s activity would be unrestrained, i.e., the extraordinary and miraculous would be more characteristic of era than previously. The new heart and all its outward manifestations are for the purpose of ensuring the obedience of Israel and the conversion of the world.
6. Most miracles and extraordinary divine interventions recorded in Scripture occurred for a great variety of purposes beyond serving as mere conformations of biblical testimony.
7. The cessationist readings of Eph. 2:20 and 1 Cor. 13:8-10 seem plausible, but are not absolutely warranted by the text. In light of the above considerations I must reject cessationism as a viable theory of Church history.
Hoss, in response to your question about the church fathers, I must confess ignorance on the subject. The following list culled from the online Catholic Encyclopedia appears to demonstrate that for at least several centuries extraordinary gifts were operative in the Church:
• Thus St. Clement of Rome and St. Ignatius of Antioch speak of the miracles wrought in their time.
• Origen says he has seen examples of demons expelled, many cures effected, and prophecies fulfilled (“C. Celsum”, I, II, III, VII).
• Irenaeus taunts the magic-workers of his day that “they cannot give sight to the blind nor hearing to the deaf, nor put to flight demons; and they are so far from raising the dead as Our Lord did, and the Apostles, by prayer, and as is most frequently done among the brethren, that they even think it impossible” (Adv. haer., II).
• St. Athanasius writes the life of St. Anthony from what he himself saw and heard from one who had long been in attendance on the saint.
• St. Justin in his second apology to the Roman Senate appeals to miracles wrought in Rome and well attested.
• Tertullian challenges the heathen magistrates to work the miracles which the Christians perform (Apol., xxiii);
• St. Paulinus, in the life of St. Ambrose, narrates what he has seen.
• St. Augustine gives a long list of extraordinary miracles wrought before his own eyes, mentions names and particulars, describes them as well known, and says they happened within two years before he published the written account (De civit. Dei., XXII, viii; Retract., I, xiii).
• St. Jerome wrote a book to confute Vigilantius and prove that relics should be venerated, by citing miracles wrought through them.
• Theodoret published the life of St. Simon Stylites while the saint was living, and thousands were alive who had been eyewitnesses of what had happened.
• St. Victor, Bishop of Vita, wrote the history of the African confessors whose tongues had been cut out by command of Hunneric, and who yet retained the power of speech, and challenges the reader to go to Reparatus, one of them then living at the palace of the Emperor Zeno.
• From his own experience Sulpicius Severus wrote the life of St. Martin of Tours.
• St. Gregory the Great writes to St. Augustine of Canterbury not to be elated by the many miracles God was pleased to work through his hands for the conversion of the people of Britain.
Contrary to the cessationist view that Scripture only needed to be confirmed when it was first given, it seems to me there will always be a “need” for the truth of Scripture to be confirmed to persons through special personal revelation and even the miraculous.
Having said all this, Hoss, I share your concern about the various fringe groups that have charged the historic Church with having fallen away from the faith. To my mind, full cessationism and supernaturalistic enthusiasm appear to be opposite sides of the same coin. Both have a low view of the historic Church: the historic Church either fell away from faith or is devoid of the Spirit’s presence.
In opposition to them, the best I can say right now is to mention something I once read in Bulgakov. In order for the Church to be healthy and grow in grace two broad kinds of ministries have been given her. First, we need the normal “Petrine” legal and institutional ministry that preserves decent order. Second, we need the extraordinary “Pauline” prophetic ministry that is derived directly from Christ, but which must recognize and be recognized by the normal ministry in order to be approved as genuine.
I also read recently—I forget where—that there is a third ministry, the “Johannine” priestly ministry that is necessary. Make of this what you will, but these three ministries correspond to the three main aspects of Christ’s office, prophet, priest and king. They also broadly correspond to the three main branches of Christianity: Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant!
Well, Hoss, this has taken too long; I am a slow, ponderous, and (perhaps) uncareful thinker. I’ll address your other challenges at another time.
Have a blessed day, brother!
Andrew
Brother Andrew – I will read this more carefully later this evening, but thank you for your very gracious remarks [far more edifying than some of the pigeon droppings with which I have been pelted at other times, and elsewhere].
Let me say at the outset that if we take off the table 99.99% of what occurs in so-called Pentecostalist and Charismatic settings here in the USA in the name of tongues, healings, etc., I have no problem with virtually everything that you lay out here.
Perhaps the only area of potential divergence [and if there are others, that's fine, and that's what this site is about], is in my offering that Reformed and Reformed scholastic types are not the only ones who have argued in some of these ways, such that what I thought you were contending to be intrinsic to the Reformed view, actually appears beyond the TULIP fields [and beyond the dispy ones as well].
Having said this, I would concur with you that the standard cessationist view from Reformed scholastics [and Dispies], which seeks to hijack I Cor. 13 and turn the coming of our Lord [or eschaton, or both, depending on the slant of this or that exegete] into the completed canon of Scripture may have been sufficient to persuade worthies like O. Palmer Robertson or Jonathan Edwards, but I find it largely uncompelling. Similarly, while I question the authoritative interpretation he cast upon all of his various counseling and deliverance episodes, I cannot dismiss the work of exorcists such as the great Lutheran Evangelist/Deliverance Minister Kurt Koch, who, as you probably know, used to preach with D.M. Lloyd-Jones [the good Doctor actually recalled a case of demonic deliverance which occurred through the work of two laymen in his church whom he ADVISED in the matter, viz. their uttering certain texts of Scripture at the demonized woman, leading to her miraculous deliverance].
If I may, I once had an occasion street preaching where a man clearly under the power of a demonic spirit, recounted several specific sins of my past upon being challenged to repent ["who are you to tell be about Jesus and His blood, you're the guy who did X, Y, and Z", with astounding specifity], leading me to conclude that something rather supernatural was occurring there. Such occasions could be multiplied, and I am aware of other brethren, including a former colleague of mine converting out of a tribal background, having similar if not more distinct encounters than what I just briefly mentioned.
Incidentally, I enjoyed very much, my perusal of your church’s website recently. Any church recommending a close read of Hooker and Browne on the 39 Articles is a blessing indeed. A friend of mine in LA who may embark on marriage to a broadly affiliating Episcopal gal, will get my recommendation he visit your congregation. The typical Calvinist club is the LAST place I would recommend such wandering sheep, as I don’t typically tend to believe that the Spirit of God is working among many of the pen-protector congregations on the right hand, or the haiwaian shirt ones, on the left.
Blessings
Hoss
Hi Peter,
Just a quick response as I await the main body of your reply:
1a. I had no intention of questioning the categories of sign and signified per se and am sorry if I inadvertently conveyed such. According to my understanding, the mere recognition of these categories does not necessarily erect a dialectical opposition between them. I’m very comfortable using the language itself. The following statements from previous comments of mine should be understood in this light.
In the sixth comment under this thread, I wrote: “I don’t think it’s appropriate to use the language of disjunction to refer to the relation between sign and reality.” Here I do not have the categories in view but the sort of relation that’s construed to subsist between them.
Similarly, in the twelfth comment under this thread, I wrote: “[M]y point is that opposing sign and reality in dialectical antagonism to one another is a de-creative act perpetrated by faithless reason. The sign and the reality are both created by God and united to “fit” one another perfectly. No man has the right to separate what God has joined. I am unhappy with, and vigorously oppose, any and all ‘disjunctive’ language employed to characterize the relation of the sacramental elements in themselves.”
Here I tried to express the concern that those who suppress the reality of the metaphysical union effected by God’s word are prone to oppose nature and grace and break apart the sacramental elements, ending up with hollowed-out rituals instead of effectual sacraments. I accept the categories of nature & grace and sign & signified with qualifications.
My original objection was triggered by your statement under the “Reformed Theologies” thread (#73) that read: “Both the continuity and the distinction (or even disjunction) follow from the nature of sacramental sign.” Here I perceived you had in mind a separable relation subsisting between sign and signified that went beyond mere “distinction.” I am still unclear how, if at all, “disjunction” differs from “distinction” in your view. Depending on what you mean, extrapolating “disjunctivity” from the conceptual nature of sacramental sign may be guilty of begging the question at issue.
1b. I’m very interested in seeing a demonstration how my sacramental understanding presupposes monophysitism, or how anything I’ve said confuses sign & signified and/ or spirit & matter.
2. I’m not entirely sure that the sacramental agent of regeneration (water) is metaphysically unaffected by the virtue to which it is joined. However, I’ll let that pass for now.
I guess it would provide clarity to point out that there are actually three sacramental elements (for want of a better term), not two. There is the Heavenly reality (Christ) that involves some virtue (new creation) and a divine pledge (promise) that undergirds and certifies the sign, so that what is offered is truly exhibited. Then there is the sign itself, of course, and finally the intended effect in the subject. This actually helps me better conceive all the issues we’ve been discussing.
3. If what you mean by methexis is ontological participation, great! (I was ignorant of the Greek.) We can continue and talk about what this means for the practical outworking of Church authority in the world. (And I see this is already happening on a new thread.)
Very well, I await your response and wish you well.
Regards,
Andrew