One of the more disturbing trends I’ve seen recently is that people are more and more defining the church’s doctrine by what individuals within that church say or said.
Francis Turretin has a brilliant answer to this methodology. He is referring in this context to various accusations against the Reformed position on providence and the question of evil. The accusers were saying that the Reformed position makes God the author of sin. He says this about the accusers:Hence they are accustomed to drawing nothing from public standards to prove their calumnies, but only from the writings of private divines from which they falsely weave consequences. (paragraph break, LK) Concerning the public and received opinion of any church, a judgment cannot and ought not to be formed from the writings of private persons…because we do not stand or fall with the judgment of each private divine, however illustrious (volume 1 of Institutes of Elenctic Theology, p. 529).
I must confess that this proposition confuses me. Try as I might I cannot separate Turretin’s argument from the main argument. Therefore, I must disagree with both. Words, communications and judgments are covenantal. That means that we derive them from other individuals. I know nothing except by what I am taught by other individuals. I do perceive certain things, but I understand those things by what individuals instruct me. From time to time I may have an original thought, but even in such instances my thoughts are built on a system of thought provided by others.
Even Scripture was written by individuals. Everything I know was provided by other individuals.
There is value in public confessions adopted by a church. Such expressions are a consensus of many individuals. And yet, the source of these statements is still individuals. It is also true of consensus documents that they compromise on matters of disagreement. Therefore, they accommodate the judgments of some individuals at the expense of the judgments of others. Consensus documents can be vague in order to accommodate many views.
So where does that leave us? Man is fallen. That means all of our words, communications and judgments are potentially flawed. Our communications are flawed and our understandings are flawed. The only exception to this rule is Scripture. And while the original communication of the message of Scripture is flawless, our understanding remains subject to the flaw.
The solution to this predicament is not in the restriction of opinion to some elite group but to the free expression of opinion. As was adeptly pointed out by another individual responding to the blog post, the author of the post embodied this principle by referencing an opinion of an individual to support his individual argument. The founders of our nation understood this principle and gave us the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution. They understood that in political discourse the free exchange of ideas was important to our covenant community. It is no less so in the covenant community of the church.
Posts
4 comments:
You say, 'Words, communications and judgments are covenantal. That means that we derive them from other individuals.' I'm not sure that 'covenantal' necessarily entails 'derive(s) ... from other individuals.' Covenantal considerations would seem to imply a greater emphasis not upon individuals as such but upon individuals functioning corporately. It is precisely in this capacity that a Church functions as the pillar and ground of the Truth in upholding and establishing the truth of Scripture through confessional standards. While such standards are developed through deliberation, if adopted as the official statement of the Church, such standards are no longer to be treated as merely a 'consensus statement' of a bunch of individuals. That is, for the Church, the whole is greater than the some of its parts.
The synodical determinations of a Church have a different status and authority than the determinations of any one individual member of that Church. It is precisely this point that Turretin is pressing. No single individual speaks definitively for what the Church believes and teaches. Rather, we who are Reformed believe that the definitive statement of a Church's beliefs is found in her confessional declarations. And we believe that this is by God's design.
The Reformed believe that the doctrinal determinations of a Church represented in her confessional standards, if they are true to the Scriptures, 'are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in his Word.' (WCF 31.2) There is a 'power' (i.e., authority) spoken of there that belongs to the Church corporately and is exercised through her Elders corporately in synod. That authority is not exercised by any one individual as such. It is an authority appointed by God and subordinate to the absolute authority of the Holy Spirit speaking in and by the Scriptures.
I hope that this helps to clarify what is intended by this classic Reformed position. I imagine you might disagree with this position, but I hope that you understand it better and are no longer confused by it.
Interesting point. I would assume then, if you are married, you have not entered into a covenantal relationship with your wife?
BTW, being reformed, I agree with everything you write after you suggest that covenant necessarily implies emphasis on our corporateness.
You write,
'Interesting point. I would assume then, if you are married, you have not entered into a covenantal relationship with your wife?'
I'm not sure what your point is here. Marriage is certainly a covenantal relationship, but again, so far as it is covenantal it does not highlight individuality so much as corporate oneness. That is clearly the emphasis that the Scriptures place upon the marriage relationship, that the man and woman are 'one.' Further, not every example of a covenantal relationship is identical in all its details. So, marriage as a covenantal relationship may or may not be instructive with regard to other covenantal relationships under consideration.
Be that as it may, In my comment I was trying to suggest that your appeal to the concept of covenant seemed out of place if your point was to emphasise the primary and fundamental role of individuals as opposed to Synods in relation to doctrine.
You go on to say,
'BTW, being reformed, I agree with everything you write after you suggest that covenant necessarily implies emphasis on our corporateness.'
I'm glad for the ostensible agreement, but you originally stated,
'Try as I might I cannot separate Turretin’s argument from the main argument. Therefore, I must disagree with both.'
I was arguing in favour of Turretin's position that individuals as such do not speak authoritatively for what a Church believes, his point being that an individual's opinion does not have the same status as the deliverances of a Synod. That was Lane's point in quoting Turretin. That was Turretin's point in the quotation. But this is precisely what you said you must disagree with.
Post a Comment