15 May 2015 A.D. Mark Jones—Personal Reflections on “Deviant Calvinism”
15 May 2015 A.D. Mark Jones—Personal Reflections on “Deviant Calvinism”
Jones,
Mark. “Personal Reflections on `Deviant Calvinism.” Reformation21. 14 May 2015. http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2015/05/reflections-on-deviant-calvini.php.
Accessed 15 May 2015.
Personal Reflections on "Deviant
Calvinism"
Posted by
How wide or narrow is the Reformed faith? In his recent book, Deviant
Calvinism: Broadening Reformed Theology, Fuller Seminary Professor, Oliver
Crisp, uses the tools of historical theology and analytic theology to address
various questions, such as the broadness of Calvinistic theology. He does this
not merely as a question of historical fact, but in order to help the church
today understand that Reformed theology has a breadth to it that is not quite
as narrow as some have presumed. This diversity that Crisp draws attention to
can only be helpful for Reformed theology today, according to the argument in
his book. It is a "constructive theological project" aimed to show
that Reformed theology has "important resources" for contemporary
systematic theology (p. 3).
Interestingly,
he puts forth strong cases for positions he does not necessarily hold to, which
is commendable. In other words, what is the best possible case for position x?
Or, to use an example from his book, what philosophical, logical, and
theological possibilities exist for justification-in-eternity to not lead to
antinomianism and thus remain within the bounds of Reformed orthodoxy (see p.
61)?
What
Crisp attempts to do is not an easy task. He is also drawing attention to an
important discussion that needs to take place. I confess that I still struggle
in my mind about what the appropriate boundaries are for Reformed theology.
Those who think it is an easy question may be a bit naive. With my sympathy
towards his project made clear, I am nevertheless of the view that his idea of
broadness may be too broad for me and the historical analysis may suffer in a
few places.
First,
I wonder if the reader could be forgiven for thinking that Crisp views
Arminians as a branch within the Reformed tradition, as many Remonstrants today
wish to argue. Crisp states on page 27 that "most Reformed theologians
(though perhaps not all) are said to affirm monergism." In the footnote
(fn. 18) he then claims: "Reformed theologians are typically theological
determinists, but some have advocated theological libertarianism, like the
Arminians." Does Crisp think the Arminians are, in some sense, Reformed?
Or are those Reformed who have advocated theological libertarianism doing so in
the same way the Arminians did? I don't know what Crisp is getting at exactly.
I am also left wondering who these Reformed theologians are who were not
monergists? I can't think of anyone.
Crisp
states on the next page (28) that it is not clear to him that "Arminians
are synergists." He also raises the question over how the human will may
"contribute" to salvation. So if there are (hypothetically?) Reformed
theologians who are not monergistic, but it is also not clear to Crisp that
Arminians are synergistic, then what categories does he have in mind to sort
this problem out? Are Arminians monergistic but some Reformed are not?
As
we study the historical context of debate between the Arminians (Remonstrants)
and Reformed, we note that they had strong disagreements on almost every major
point of theology (e.g., providence, Christology, trinity, covenant, doctrine of
God), especially justification. For the Arminians, it is the (human!) act of
faith that is (by grace!) counted as (evangelical) righteousness, as if it were
the complete fulfillment of the whole law. It is a genuine human act, coming
forth from the liberum arbitrium. So that is synergistic, in my
mind.
In
addition, we should also add that Arminius's vigorous commitment to scientia
media meant that God responded to hypothetical human willing prior to God's
providential concursus. All Arminians believe they are saved by grace, as do
Roman Catholics, but Molinism allows for a subtle form of synergism (so Richard
Muller), which is precisely what differentiates Arminian soteriology from
Reformed soteriology.
Historically
speaking, the term Reformed has reference to a particular confessional
tradition. Arminius, for example, came into conflict with this confessional
tradition. He tried to claim he held to the Heidelberg Catechism and Belgic
Confession, but this was deceptive on Arminius's part. I wonder if Crisp thinks
that Karl Barth is part of this Reformed confessional tradition, as well?
Second,
I am a little perplexed by some of the historical work in Deviant Calvinism.
Let me draw attention to the chapter on eternal justification.
Crisp
makes the distinction between justification in eternity and justification from
eternity (p. 44). But I am personally unaware of any seventeenth-century author
who makes this distinction. Is this his own "analytical" way of
clarifying the issue or is this his reading of the historical documents?
Moreover, the distinction between formal and material justification is not
historical, to my mind. Also the idea that God's eternal act of
(eternal) justification is incomplete (p. 45) does not have a Reformed
pedigree, as far as I know. The intermingling of the analytic approach with the
historical approach leaves me confused at times.
I
also do not think the topic of eternal justification is really all that
important today, nor was it in the past. It is certainly not a "central
and defining" doctrine of Calvinistic theology (see Crisp's comments on p.
238). The chapter deals with an interesting issue, but hardly a topic that will
help the church today, in my view. There are other more pressing issues that I
would like to have seen Crisp address, especially since his chapter on
"double payment" had much value to it.
Third,
the use of literature in the book to mine these incredibly complex debates
seems to be too heavily focused on secondary sources. For example, there are
Latin sources (e.g., William Twisse, Vindiciae Gratiae), which should be
essential for discussing the topic of eternal justification in its historical
context. Crisp is not uncomfortable with complex stuff, but the Protestant
scholastics were even more nuanced than what I found in his chapter on the
topic. Also, the topic of hypothetical universalism is exceedingly complex, and
only a sustained rigorous analysis of the primary sources is going to get us
beyond what the (sometimes average) secondary literature has offered thus far
(note: Aaron Denliger's excellent essay on the topic in this book).
Speaking
of sources, it is not easy to bridge historical theology with systematic
theology or analytical theology. Crisp has my sympathy for the difficult task
at hand. But, I am also concerned by the lack of exegetical or even basic
biblical interaction in the works of analytic theologians in general. Helpful
proposals for the church today need to be exegetically grounded in Scripture,
in my view, even if they are helped by analytical theology.
Fourth,
I am curious as to why some systematic positions that Crisp labels as
Calvinistic were not regarded as such by Calvinists in the seventeenth century?
In a book like this, I would like to know why the Dortian Calvinists of the
seventeenth century viewed libertarianism as un-Reformed. But the question is
not mentioned in regard to their objection on the matter, and therefore not
answered. On this topic, see the Canons of Dort, III/IV.14; rejection
III/IV.6,8).
Fifth,
I came away from this book thinking that perhaps my own emphases on Reformed
diversity are quite a bit different than Professor Crisp's ideas on
"broadening Reformed theology." In one respect, I agree with much of
what he's trying to do. But, on pages 14-15, Crisp speaks of Reformed and Roman
Catholic branches of Christianity as "siblings, not enemies, related to
one parent, namely, Western Catholic Christendom" (15). He adds that it is
a mistake to think of the Reformed and Roman Catholics as "two distinct
religious entities" (15). (Remember, the Pope was the antichrist in the
original WCF).
As
I understand Rome, she till holds a view of justification that is antithetical
to the classical Protestant view that we are justified by faith alone. Are we
not still anathematized for holding that we are justified by faith alone? We
are only siblings in the sense that Rome has run away from the family, and, by
her excommunication of us, has actually excommunicated herself. Our squabbles
continue to revolve around the heart of the gospel, not peripheral issues.
It
is true that the Reformed tradition has diversity. My own publications attest
to that fact. And it is true that there are some over-zealous Reformed types
out there who want to narrow Reformed theology in such a way that some of our
leading lights would be excommunicated from the Reformed pale. It is also true
that some are simply unaware of the breadth of the Reformed tradition. But the
diversity found in the OPC, PCA, and PCUSA all differ. Is Calvinism now able to
embrace gay marriage, theistic evolution, and a denial of a literal Adam? (I'm
by no means suggesting that Crisp is obliged to answer these questions, but
where does this broadening end? I'd love to see Crisp address the current
denial of a literal Adam, especially since he has such expertise on the topic
of Adam's sin and its consequences for humanity. Update: looks like that may be
a reality, see here).
Crisp
says in the conclusion that "it has been the burden of this book that
Calvinism is still regarded too narrowly" (236). But the
"broadening" found in Deviant Calvinism raises for me many
questions. Based on the other chapters in the book, the diversity Crisp appears
comfortable with in the Reformed tradition is, for me, a PCA minister, a
diversity that stretches too far.
In
conclusion, I buy almost all of Oliver Crisp's books. They always challenge me,
get me to think, and sometimes make me feel incredibly stupid. His book is not
the final word, and there is more to be said. The conversation is not over, but
we are making progress. Professor Crisp has gotten me to think more carefully
about how Reformed churches can identify the boundaries of Calvinism more
faithfully and clearly in relation to the Reformed tradition, and for that I am
thankful. After all, it is easier to poke holes than offer a program. So, yes,
I have some criticisms, but they are moderated by how difficult the task really
is.
Comments
Post a Comment