# Is our theology only 500 years old?



## FedByRavens (Jul 24, 2012)

A few weeks ago I posted the question "Is our theology only 500 years old?" on a Calvinism page on Facebook. My reason in doing was because I've had many conversations with Lutherans who basically told me that almost everything I believe is just a few centuries old and fairly gnostic. I didn't have a clue that droves of Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox's would begin to comment on the thread. I began to grow a little stressed when I began to think about what they said. Is this true? Any early church father that I read believed in Baptismal regeneration. Can any of you brethren help me with this?


----------



## KMK (Jul 24, 2012)

The Reformed agree with the historic creeds all the way back to the Apostolic. Therefore, it cannot be said that Reformed theology is only 500 years old. I think the question you are asking is, "Are the _distinctives_ of Reformed Theology only as old as the Reformation?" If that is the question, then each distinctive must be examined individually.


----------



## py3ak (Jul 24, 2012)

Caleb, there are several things that could be said.

The first one is that arising from the Scriptures is the genuine test of theology. Error may have a long pedigree, but that doesn't make it right. If Paul could hold himself sent to preach the gospel rather than to baptize, that is more significant for determining the genuine place of baptism than acres of bishops and centuries of academicians.

The second is that our theology is (at least ideally, though not always in the way we hold it) an organic whole. There are certain points we hold in common with Rome and Constantinople. On the points that divide us, the question is whose take on those matters of contention is more in harmony with what we hold in common. We hold, with Warfield and Bavinck, that Calvinism is simply Christianity come into its own - that in worship, practice, and doctrine our soteriology, sacramentology, ecclesiology, eschatology fit and harmonize with the confession of God as Triune, as Creator, etc., better than the welded together amalgams of the other churches.

The third is that, as with any intellectual endeavor, theology does get more thoroughly investigated as time goes by. So the fact that it took over 300 years for genuine clarity and consistent vocabulary to be achieved (not in Scripture but) in the church's confession about the deity of Christ doesn't mean no one earlier held to it - but the linguistic tools had not been refined and the defensive framework had not been completed. That means that as far as precise and scientific expression goes, some parts of our theology are 200, some 500, some 1600 and some 1700 years old.

The fourth is that there are plenty of innovations within the Roman and EO churches. Transubstantiation, withholding the cup from the laity (now no longer withheld), opposition to clerical marriages, papal infallibility, immaculate conception and assumption of Mary, to mention a few on the Roman side, are all innovations of more or less recent pedigree. If Rome rejects our point of view because it's 500 years old, does their point of view being 800 years old really make that much difference? (And of course images in worship, as among the EO, are also an innovation - or an atavistic relapse to the bad times before the Jews returned from their exile.)

The fifth is that church fathers may well speak sacramentally, not distinguishing the sign and the thing signified. Probably this was due in part to actual confusion, in part to simply imitating Biblical language rather than using a scientific vocabulary, and in part, more clearly so as time goes by, due to a defective sacramentology. The possibility of error is present as soon as truth is presented; so that error is present almost immediately wherever truth is found: it shouldn't bother you that there are people who got things wrong in the early church, anymore than it should keep you up late that people are wrong on the Internet. But it is also not necessary to read back into them a fully developed error, anymore than it's necessary to accuse Hilary of error because his vocabulary wasn't always as precise as Augustine's.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 24, 2012)

Consider baptism.

By the time we have theologians and pastors (church fathers) writing on the subject and leaving those writings for us (so long after), we are a couple centuries into the post-apostolic era. This is time-enough for a second-order issue such as baptism to have experienced some deformation (by "second-order, I only mean it is not as important, though it is important, as the doctrine of Christ or a number of other doctrines the church must spend the most time defining and defending).

The church continued its baptismal practice, while losing some connection to its meaning and defense, according to a strictly biblical understanding. Some of the descriptions in the NT of the meaning and efficacy of baptism began to be taken at "face-value," when the _signifying_ aspect of them was granted _operational_ power. So, a statement such as "baptism now saves you" (1Pet.3:21) could soon be taken in a physical sense, despite Peter's own spiritual qualifications of the intent of his words in the very same verse.

A major interpretive issue comes about, because in this early time frame the division between the Christian and late-Jewish religion (which both emerge from one root, and divide at the cross) becomes very pronounced. The church holds on to an OT (in the Greek language), but is soon cut off from both the Hebrew OT text as well as the kind of Jewish-Christian mind that was simply a part of who the apostles were (to a man), and the vast majority of the first constituency of Christians.

What this translates to is a church that owes more (in the second and subsequent generations of leadership) philosophically to Greek thought-patterns than to ancient-Israel. Consequently, when the church begins to discuss the theology of its baptismal practice, it does so in the milieu of minds trained in main cultural patterns a the heart of the Empire, and not in the cultural patterns of one marginalized group at the fringe of the Empire.

"Baptismal regeneration" (BR) does not strike me as an idea coherent with a Jewish-OT mind. BR has a strong whiff of "magic" about it. BR attributes to a physical act on the body supernatural or spiritual effects on the soul. Now, it certainly is possible to attenuate the bald "ex opere" view, and the Lutherans have (I suspect) recaptured to some extent the best part of the views of the church of the third century. Lutherans believe in BR, however they attribute the efficacy of baptism to the Words of Institution, as they are a form of Promise and are the engine of Holy Spirit's work in the spiritual realm.

But I propose that the place to which EO and Rome take the (unattenuated) concept of BR is it's natural resting place. They have the "ex opere" view (and it goes along with their view of the church as the spiritual-interface of the world), and understand water baptism to be the means by which a person undergoes a real change-in-nature; they have their Original Sin removed (along with any actual sins committed to that point), which institutes a kind-of "clean slate" condition for the baptized now to function within. And furthermore, this doctrine of BR leads naturally to a maintenance-view of righteousness, a works-righteousness. And this is all very foreign to biblical religion, which is OT-NT cohesive and coherent.

There's a sort-of radical discontinuity between OT and NT religion in many forms of Christianity, including Rome and EO. That is, Rome and EO believe they can defend their doctrines by the NT _according as they read it_. Setting aside for the time being any apparent "continuity" between OT priests and Roman priests, sacrifices, etc., we can grant that one foundation for the NT can be replaced by another, even a shaky one; but there is no such thing as a rational religion without preconditions, without a religious, philosophical, or historical basis; and often some combination of all three. (If you want to know what a religion that has precious little in the way of genuine preconditions looks like, I invite you to investigate the utterly irrational Scientology, a religion of almost pure invention, mid-20th century in origin.)

In the case of Rome and EO, the OT religious foundation is largely given up, and replaced by one philosophically Greek, frequently Gnostic, in character. We can compare the effect of multifarious Gnosticism on the early church (3rd/4th centuries) with similar effects on pop-American Christianity by uncounted streams of Eastern religion. There are some interesting parallels; but what I'm mainly interested showing is that "pop-religion" (which is what Gnosticism was in those days) often has unaccounted for effects on Christianity, because it is embedded in popular culture. And true Christianity swims in the sea of culture _but against the tide_, always trying to maintain itself intact while buffeted by constant attempts to change it.

The church does have the ability to "self-correct". That is, in reliance on the blessing of God, and the presence of the Holy Spirit, it has recourse to the Word of God. Always, when the church goes back to the Word, it is able to recover its true foundation. It happened in the ancient church, when it came to defending the deity of Christ against Arius. It happened in Agustin's days against Pelagius over the doctrine of Man and Sin (and, by a correlative effect, a fairly clear explication of the doctrine of Predestination). It happened in the days of the reformation, concerning the gospel and Justification.

Now, it would be puzzling to me, Caleb, if any *Lutherans* would be promoting the idea that Justification by Faith--though well connected with Luther and the 1500s--was only as old as Luther. Of course, they along with we as Reformed typically see Justification by faith (alone) in the writings of church fathers. Of course, it comes along with some other things and errors and some confusion, but they haven't lost the idea. In God's providence, it is after so long it becomes buried and nearly extinguished by the late Middle Ages, that God rouses Luther to recover it, and defend it (to the death, if need be). It is a dramatic recovery, the more so because it is so important and yet so neglected. And so some might think that it was in fact novel (as many of the 16th century detractors said it was).

Now, I have one last thing to add here. And that is: on the subject of baptism, you have an additional burden to discharge that someone like me does not have. I do not have to explain "believers-only" baptism to those who practice "believers-and-infant baptism;" I only have to defend my own theology of baptism, my own reasons for maintaining practices that have formal similarity to theirs, while I reject their theology of BR. Its up to you to defend Scripturally, historically, ecclesially, or any other way your theology of baptism.

My word of warning is this: beware the fact that you often do not understand the conflicts between unstated premises in your own mind. You are not aware (nor am I) of EVERY propositional conflict; and you are susceptible to the danger of tossing out _the wrong thing_ when you find yourself in an intellectual quandary. Please beware of this. I have seen men on this board "jump ship," and go to Rome or EO--why? For the same reason some men finally cave in to evolution, or other principles that they once thought were utterly foreign to their "right way of thinking." They come to find out that they are committed rather (and perhaps surprisingly) deeply to a "scientific" principle, or to a "historic" principle, or to an "authority" principle--to a root proposition that exercises a strong, governmental suasion over their reading and understanding of the Bible.

This is why I say that it does you no good to begin with a kind of "shocked" attitude that the church-fathers (some few whose writings on the subject survive) advocated BR. One good reaction might be, "So what?" What does it mean that some did? Could it mean that these men were wrong? And that their wrong attitudes had an inordinate and undesirable effect on the whole church for not-a-short-time after their days? Our main question is and must remain: "what saith the Scriptures?" Yes, we all have our biases and blind spots. But more than anything, a Bible-Christian wants to know what God says to us, through his Bible and trustworthy teachers of it, who cut us a straight course.


----------



## Supersillymanable (Jul 24, 2012)

FedByRavens said:


> A few weeks ago I posted the question "Is our theology only 500 years old?" on a Calvinism page on Facebook. My reason in doing was because I've had many conversations with Lutherans who basically told me that almost everything I believe is just a few centuries old and fairly gnostic. I didn't have a clue that droves of Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox's would begin to comment on the thread. I began to grow a little stressed when I began to think about what they said. Is this true? Any early church father that I read believed in Baptismal regeneration. Can any of you brethren help me with this?



I guess the key question is, _what_ are they saying is 500 years old? There are many things they clearly cannot show are 500 years old. Are there any specifics that they mentioned that particularly riled you?


----------



## FedByRavens (Jul 24, 2012)

Ruben and Rev. Bruce, you both bring up strong points. I appreciate how much you brothers were willing to type and how deeply you presented your points. Thank you.

I guess it would be wise to do some explaining of myself so that my spiritual status may be clearer. I was a wicked, depraved sinner that was drastically changed by the Gospel of Jesus Christ without the aid of baptism or personal effort, so I'm not seeing any validity in Rome or her sister in the East. Sola Fide has been the most beautiful thing my fallen ears have ever heard. 
I guess I'm just now realizing how little I've considered history since the Lord saved me. All while us protestants are studying scripture the RC's and EO's are studying they're interpretation of history. So to the young protestant sees only the RC's appealing to history. I've came across many ex-protestants who are now RC and they all have one thing in common, they were all more committed to the "historic principle" as Rev. Buchanan put it.

I guess my first mistake is thinking that third century Christians(those who are like modern day Lutherans) MUST have a corner on truth because they came before us.


----------



## jogri17 (Jul 24, 2012)

First, the same thing could be said to this Lutheran. Second, I would have them read Aquinas and Augustine on predestination which were quite high... higher than than the majority of drafters of the Canons of Dort. Finally, I would point to the truth that theology is never something settled, it is always fluid and being interpreted and articulated according to the needs of the people of God and the society at large.


----------



## py3ak (Jul 24, 2012)

jogri17 said:


> Finally, I would point to the truth that theology is never something settled, it is always fluid and being interpreted and articulated according to the needs of the people of God and the society at large.



Not really a strong argument against someone swayed by the putative stability of the Magisterium. Much better is Bavinck's approach of noticing how united the church has been on many rather essential points, even if formulations and emphases have varied. 
God's word is forever settled in heaven: our apprehension of that is weak, no doubt, but that is very different from formulations being simply "fluid" or the truth itself being indeterminate.


----------



## eqdj (Jul 25, 2012)

Read Calvin's Prefatory Address in his Institutes, specifically where he starts,



> Nevertheless, they cease not to assail our doctrine, and to accuse and defame it in what terms they may, in order to render it either hated or suspected. They call it new, and of recent birth; they carp at it as doubtful and uncertain; they bid us tell by what miracles it has been confirmed; they ask if it be fair to receive it against the consent of so many holy Fathers and the most ancient custom; they urge us to confess either that it is schismatical in giving battle to the Church, or that the Church must have been without life during the many centuries in which nothing of the kind was heard. Lastly, they say there is little need of argument, for its quality may be known by its fruits, namely, the large number of sects, the many seditious disturbances, and the great licentiousness which it has produced. No doubt, it is a very easy matter for them, in presence of an ignorant and credulous multitude, to insult over an undefended cause; but were an opportunity of mutual discussion afforded, that acrimony which they now pour out upon us in frothy torrents, with as much license as impunity,12 would assuredly boil dry.
> 
> 1. First, in calling it new, they are exceedingly injurious to God, whose sacred word deserved not to be charged with novelty. To them, indeed, I very little doubt it is new, as Christ is new, and the Gospel new; but those who are acquainted with the old saying of Paul, that Christ Jesus “died for our sins, and rose again for our justification” (Rom. 4:25), will not detect any novelty in us. That it long lay buried and unknown is the guilty consequence of man’s impiety; but now when, by the kindness of God, it is restored to us, it ought to resume its antiquity just as the returning citizen resumes his rights.
> 
> ...


----------



## J. Dean (Jul 25, 2012)

FedByRavens said:


> A few weeks ago I posted the question "Is our theology only 500 years old?" on a Calvinism page on Facebook. My reason in doing was because I've had many conversations with Lutherans who basically told me that almost everything I believe is just a few centuries old and fairly gnostic. I didn't have a clue that droves of Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox's would begin to comment on the thread. I began to grow a little stressed when I began to think about what they said. Is this true? Any early church father that I read believed in Baptismal regeneration. Can any of you brethren help me with this?



I'm frequently in contact with Lutherans and am getting the same thing. Lutherans argue that Calvin was too influenced by Enlightenment philosophy and subjected the Scriptures to human reason, and as a result the Lutherans believe that those who see Baptism and communion as symbolic are not treating the passages concerning the sacraments as literal and thus doing the sacraments a disservice (Although it needs to be remembered that Lutherans and Catholics differ from each other in their views of the sacraments as well). 

That being said, Lutherans do agree with Calvinists on Total Depravity and Unconditional Election, though the other three points they take some exception to. One of the appeals used is to the church fathers regarding baptism, but to be honest from what I have read of the church fathers there is no clear statement by them about baptism or communion one way or the other with regard to it being symbolic or substantive (if anybody has a passage from the early fathers that can shed light on this, please let me know).


----------



## Claudiu (Jul 25, 2012)

Rev. Bruce, thank you for your post. You raise up some good points that provide answers to questions I've been meaning to ask.


----------



## CuriousNdenver (Jul 25, 2012)

FedByRavens said:


> I've had many conversations with Lutherans who basically told me that almost everything I believe is just a few centuries old and fairly gnostic.



I'm curious in what aspects these folks see Reformed Theology and / or Calvinism as gnostic?

Some of the brothers who have already responded noted that we must appeal first to scripture and not historical interpretation. I do not believe that many of the early church fathers had whole copies of scripture or even of the New Testament writings available to them at the time of their writing. I find it understandable that they would have misinterpreted some aspects of our theology. It does seem clear from Paul's writings that he did not support baptismal regeneration.


----------



## J. Dean (Jul 25, 2012)

CuriousNdenver said:


> I'm curious in what aspects these folks see Reformed Theology and / or Calvinism as gnostic?


This comes in part from the understanding of the Eucharist/communion elements. The argument states that, since the post-Lutheran Reformers are not taking the words of Jesus literally ("This is my body/blood"), and that there is no warrant in Scripture for rendering the words as anything else but literal, that Calvinists, Anabaptists, and other Evangelicals are subscribing to the Gnostic belief that all things material are bad and all things spiritual are good, and as a result the sacraments become nothing more than mere symbols. In additional defense to this point, they will also state that the Early Church Fathers also held to the literal belief in communion and the regenerating effect of baptism (Again, I have not read much of the Early Fathers myself, so I cannot speak one way or another as to this point) which in their view puts history on their side. Lutherans for the most part will not go so far as to say Evangelicals are not Christians, but that they are seriously deficient in their understanding of Scripture. 



> Some of the brothers who have already responded noted that we must appeal first to scripture and not historical interpretation. I do not believe that many of the early church fathers had whole copies of scripture or even of the New Testament writings available to them at the time of their writing. I find it understandable that they would have misinterpreted some aspects of our theology. It does seem clear from Paul's writings that he did not support baptismal regeneration.


It is understandable, but at the same time church history can be a valuable resource for study. While we should never use it as our source of doctrine, it can be a guide for us to use with regard to difficult matters of doctrine (provided those matters are in alignment with the Word of God). We do this with Athanasius vs. Arius, with Augustine vs. Pelagius, with Luther and Calvin vs. Rome, and so on and so forth. History does not determine doctrine, but it CAN serve to underscore it.


----------



## CuriousNdenver (Jul 26, 2012)

J. Dean said:


> This comes in part from the understanding of the Eucharist/communion elements. The argument states that, since the post-Lutheran Reformers are not taking the words of Jesus literally ("This is my body/blood"), and that there is no warrant in Scripture for rendering the words as anything else but literal, that Calvinists, Anabaptists, and other Evangelicals are subscribing to the Gnostic belief that all things material are bad and all things spiritual are good, and as a result the sacraments become nothing more than mere symbols. In additional defense to this point, they will also state that the Early Church Fathers also held to the literal belief in communion and the regenerating effect of baptism (Again, I have not read much of the Early Fathers myself, so I cannot speak one way or another as to this point) which in their view puts history on their side. Lutherans for the most part will not go so far as to say Evangelicals are not Christians, but that they are seriously deficient in their understanding of Scripture.



Thanks for sharing this. I guess I can at least see how they may think that. I was not aware that many Lutherans held this view of Christians other than themselves.


----------

