Semper Reformada

[sotzo]

First a specific question and then one more general:

If we are always reforming, shouldn't we be willing to entertain that new ideas such as those marshalled by the Fed Vision, could be true?

Isn't the real intention of "always reforming" to further define those doctrines which are not fundamental to the faith (ie, sola gratia, etc.)? If that is not the real intention, it would seem to me the Church would never have doctrine at all.

 

[ChristopherPaul]

Good Question!

Semper Reformada means to constantly turn from our ways and to turn towards God's way.

Man's tendency is to constantly drift back to the way that seems right to him. We must constantly reform back to the way that is revealed as right by God.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

First a specific question and then one more general:

If we are always reforming, shouldn't we be willing to entertain that new ideas such as those marshalled by the Fed Vision, could be true?

Isn't the real intention of "always reforming" to further define those doctrines which are not fundamental to the faith (ie, sola gratia, etc.)? If that is not the real intention, it would seem to me the Church would never have doctrine at all.

We should always be willing to entertain anything glorifying to God which pertains to His truth.

When someone says, "Hey, I hafve a new idea in theology! Here it is...." Red flags should go up in our mind.

New things = the idea that 1) God has been negligent to inform His church for 2007 years post-Resurrection, and 2) That the church hasn't figured out the basics.

On FV - after even a cursory perusal, the Federal Vision not only confuses people, but confuses them right back to Roman Catholicism.

Why do you think that "sola gratia" (GRACE!) is not fundamental to the faith? I'm not following you here. Grace is not only fundamental, its necessary for one to even understand the basics of grace and the Gospel.

 

[Herald]

those doctrines which are not fundamental to the faith (ie, sola gratia, etc.)?

Joel, I echo Matt's question. Do you believe sola gratia is not fundamental to the Christian faith?

 

[sotzo]

We should always be willing to entertain anything glorifying to God which pertains to His truth.

When someone says, "Hey, I hafve a new idea in theology! Here it is...." Red flags should go up in our mind.

New things = the idea that 1) God has been negligent to inform His church for 2007 years post-Resurrection, and 2) That the church hasn't figured out the basics.

On FV - after even a cursory perusal, the Federal Vision not only confuses people, but confuses them right back to Roman Catholicism.

Why do you think that "sola gratia" (GRACE!) is not fundamental to the faith? I'm not following you here. Grace is not only fundamental, its necessary for one to even understand the basics of grace and the Gospel.

Apologies for my poor sentence construction! Grace is absolutely one of the fundamentals...what I should have written for better clarity was "reform those doctrines that are not fundamental to the faith (ie, doctrines other than those such as sola gratia)".

That aside, regarding your statement that alarm bells should go off when novel theology is presented....wouldn't that principle have led folks to reject Luther had they considered approx 1500 years had elapsed since the resurrection?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Well, are we suggesting that the criticism of FV has not been the the substance of a Scriptural critique/analysis?

In my observation, the reason its being rejected by so many ecclesiastical bodies, as well as schools/scholars, is because it is actually fundamentally flawed. There are now multiple book-length treatments of what makes FV erroneous. It is simply not true that it's being knee-jerk-rejected unexamined just because its "new".

 

[Herald]

Joel - I'm curious. Are you an FV and/or and NPP advocate? You have a quote from Bavinck at the bottom of your posts. Bavinck's writings seem to be FV sympathetic. What say you?

 

[sotzo]

Well, are we suggesting that the criticism of FV has not been the the substance of a Scriptural critique/analysis?

In my observation, the reason its being rejected by so many ecclesiastical bodies, as well as schools/scholars, is because it is actually fundamentally flawed. There are now multiple book-length treatments of what makes FV erroneous. It is simply not true that it's being knee-jerk-rejected unexamined just because its "new".

I agree. Let me ask my original question another way:

Is there any doctrine(s) that we can know corresponds precisely to the Bible's teaching from which they are derived? My point is that I thought Semper Reformada referred to the idea that we are always reforming our theology (and therefore lives) in light of scripture and that we are never done with that process...but it seems that would give us no assurance that we can no a doctrine to be true.

 

[sotzo]

Joel - I'm curious. Are you an FV and/or and NPP advocate? You have a quote from Bavinck at the bottom of your posts. Bavinck is an FV proponent. What say you?

No, no...not a FV or NPP propnent...just was using that issue as an example for my initial question. However, are you thinking of another Bavinck perhaps? The one who wrote the quote in my signature lived back in late
19th early 20th century...also, I can't think of anything he wrote that would put him on the FV/NPP train.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I agree that associating Bavinck with the FV is more than a bit ananchronistic. No offense intended Bill, but may you have been thinking of someone else?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Joel, I think that "always reforming" doesn't mean change is a constant. What it recognizes is that because of entropic forces and sin, the form of the church and of doctrine needs maintenance. Massive aircraft carriers are floating cities, out at sea sometimes for months, or a year. When they return to port for refitting, they are not a different ship than set sail, but the whole thing has been under constant maintenance. Painted stem to stern perhaps more than once, replacment metal sheeting everywhere, screws may have been replaced, or a thousand other alterations. All according to the design.

The Bible is our maintenance manual. We may need to fix something that hasn't been right in a long time. But the design is sound. The Reformers had to "clear the decks." But they did so with the manual in hand. If someone questions what's being done, that's fine. Just go to the book, and show how what has been done is wrong. But be prepared to answer those who will use that same book to defend the integrity of the vessel. That's "always reforming" in my book.

 

[Davidius]

Joel, I think that "always reforming" doesn't mean change is a constant. What it recognizes is that because of entropic forces and sin, the form of the church and of doctrine needs maintenance. Massive aircraft carriers are floating cities, out at sea sometimes for months, or a year. When they return to port for refitting, they are not a different ship than set sail, but the whole thing has been under constant maintenance. Painted stem to stern perhaps more than once, replacment metal sheeting everywhere, screws may have been replaced, or a thousand other alterations. All according to the design.

The Bible is our maintenance manual. We may need to fix something that hasn't been right in a long time. But the design is sound. The Reformers had to "clear the decks." But they did so with the manual in hand. If someone questions what's being done, that's fine. Just go to the book, and show how what has been done is wrong. But be prepared to answer those who will use that same book to defend the integrity of the vessel. That's "always reforming" in my book.

Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.

Although much time had elapsed between the development of the Roman Catholic Church and the Reformation, the Reformers were not teaching anything brand new. They were going back to that faith which had already been delivered.

 

[sotzo]

Joel, I think that "always reforming" doesn't mean change is a constant. What it recognizes is that because of entropic forces and sin, the form of the church and of doctrine needs maintenance. Massive aircraft carriers are floating cities, out at sea sometimes for months, or a year. When they return to port for refitting, they are not a different ship than set sail, but the whole thing has been under constant maintenance. Painted stem to stern perhaps more than once, replacment metal sheeting everywhere, screws may have been replaced, or a thousand other alterations. All according to the design.

The Bible is our maintenance manual. We may need to fix something that hasn't been right in a long time. But the design is sound. The Reformers had to "clear the decks." But they did so with the manual in hand. If someone questions what's being done, that's fine. Just go to the book, and show how what has been done is wrong. But be prepared to answer those who will use that same book to defend the integrity of the vessel. That's "always reforming" in my book.

Rev. Buchanan, very helpful explanation...thanks...I think it was my understanding of Semper Reformada that needed some help!

 

[Herald]

Bruce - thank you for the correction. I had someone else in mind and cited Bavinck erroneously. I retract my comment.

 

[kvanlaan]

While I am doubtfully adding anything to Rev. Buchanan's explanation, "Rev." Janet Edwards (descendant of the Rev. Edwards) also used the "shouldn't we always be reforming?" line of reasoning to marry two women in the PCUSA.

The view I always remember is that (to paraphrase): the Reformation was about turning back to the purity of Scripture and away from cultural tangents/Rome.

 

[turmeric]

Thanks for exonerating Bavinck, fellas! You had me worried, there.

 

[Staphlobob]

I agree that associating Bavinck with the FV is more than a bit ananchronistic. No offense intended Bill, but may you have been thinking of someone else?

Though I'm not at all familiar with Bavinck, the sig file quote seems to highlight an apophatic element in his theology. Could it be that, rather than associating him with FV, he laid a foundation for it? Just asking. (As I said, I know little-to-nothing about him or his theology.)

Regarding semper reformanda, one of the liberals in my own church tried to use this slogan as an excuse for homosexuality, relativism, etc. I pointed out to her (in public) that semper reformanda works in precisely the *opposite* direction. Sin is like gravity that always works to pull us away from God's grace and truth. Our "always reforming" indicates that we must be constantly repenting and returning to His will and way.

 

[sotzo]

Though I'm not at all familiar with Bavinck, the sig file quote seems to highlight an apophatic element in his theology. Could it be that, rather than associating him with FV, he laid a foundation for it? Just asking. (As I said, I know little-to-nothing about him or his theology.)

Bavinck would be quite difficult for any FV proponent to use as support. He wrote one of the most thorough Reformed dogmatics in history...the quote I have in my sig file is the first sentence from the Doctrine of God volume from his dogmatics. I can see how one would say the line appears to signal an apophatic leaning, but in context what Bavinck is saying is "We have to remember that at the end of the day, we are speaking about a subject before which we must bow the knee...we are simply unable to exhaust who God is."

Regarding semper reformanda, one of the liberals in my own church tried to use this slogan as an excuse for homosexuality, relativism, etc. I pointed out to her (in public) that semper reformanda works in precisely the *opposite* direction. Sin is like gravity that always works to pull us away from God's grace and truth. Our "always reforming" indicates that we must be constantly repenting and returning to His will and way.

Very helpful...thanks.

 

[tewilder]

First a specific question and then one more general:

If we are always reforming, shouldn't we be willing to entertain that new ideas such as those marshalled by the Fed Vision, could be true?

Isn't the real intention of "always reforming" to further define those doctrines which are not fundamental to the faith (ie, sola gratia, etc.)? If that is not the real intention, it would seem to me the Church would never have doctrine at all.

The thing is, the ideas of the FV are not new. They have all been around, but have been assembled in new ways.

One thing that struck me early on is that so many critics thought these ideas were new, showing how unaware most church intellectuals are of what has been discussed outside of their small circles.