I’ve
recently, and happily, come into the possession of a copy of Bavinck’s 4 volume
Reformed
Dogmatics. While I’ve read Berkhof and Reymond, I have to say I greatly
appreciate the added dimension that Bavinck brings to his studies, and that is,
the historical dimension. (Both of the others, to some degree, bring this in,
but Bavinck takes it upon himself to comment upon the entire sweep of Christian
history, which gives a perspective that one doesn’t often see.)
In the
spirit of Carl
Trueman’s request for “a thoughtful, learned Protestant response” to Roman
Catholicism, I’d like to share some of these portions from Bavinck. One key
problem with Bavinck is that he’s so 1900 – but that’s also a strength, in that
he knew, and was an accurate reporter of what the Roman Catholic Church was in
his day. [A second component to this, I suppose, will be a critique of what
Roman Catholicism, post Vatican II, has become. And don’t mistake it: Roman
Catholicism is two different things before and after Vatican II. It is the
Roman Catholicism of today that we must deal with today. But the historical background is enlightening and important.]
From Bavinck’s
“Prolegomena”:
Although in the earliest period the
authority of Scripture was decisive for the doctrine of the church, gradually
the tradition developing alongside of it gained independent status as a source
of knowledge. Soon, with the rise of the episcopacy and over against a wide
range of sects and heresies, the idea surfaced that the bishops were the lawful
successors of the apostles and the bearers of truth. Consequently, in virtue of
the “grace of truth” (charisma veitatis)
given them, they were entitled to decide what was the pure apostolic Christian
truth. Through this process, the teaching of the bishops became the “rule of
truth” (regula veritatis), and the
authority of Scripture increasingly receded into the shadows. Tradition became
a force alongside of, and, not long afterwards, superior to, Holy Scripture.
Finally, when tradition even received its own infallible organ in the person of
the pope, it also, in fact, took the place of the Word of God, for “the auctoritas interpretive is invariably the
supreme and the true authority” …
Already in the Middle Ages, and later
especially during the Reformation, many movements rose up in opposition to this
devaluation and neglect of Scripture. The Reformation again squarely took its
position in the original gospel, just as Jesus returned from the tradition of
the elders to the law and the prophets and restored to Scripture the place of
honor due to it. And later, each time tradition in the Protestant churches
again threatened to become a freedom-suppressing force, a movement arose that,
turning its back on scholasticism, sought its moorings in Holy Scripture. (Vol
1, pgs 62-63).
In the first
paragraph here, in taking this period from “the earliest period” through the “development”
of “the episcopacy” to a point at which there is a “person of the pope”, Bavinck
is looking at generally the first four or five centuries. Still, he gets the
sweep of it correct. In our archives here, we’ve broken out this period and
given it a much more granular look; from the house churches in the earliest
century, and in Jason
Engwer’s look at the rise of the monoepiscopacy and the development of “apostolic
succession”.
It should be
clear to most that these were “developments” and in no wise part of the organic
structure of “the church that Christ founded”. “The church that Christ founded”
had nothing at all of the look of later “catholicism”. Some of these “developments”
were useful for a period, but they were not a “structural component” of the
church, nor were they “established for all time” by Christ. They may have been
expedient arrangements, but the fixing of these things proved more harmful than
good.
It is … noteworthy that the Holy
Scripture never refers human beings to themselves as the epistemic source and
standard of religious truth. How, indeed, could it, since it describes the
“natural” man as totally darkened and corrupted by sin in his intellect (Ps.
14:3; Rom 1:21-23; Rom 8:7; 1 Bor. 23; 2:14; 2 Cor 3:5; Eph. 4:23; Gal 1:6, 7;
1 Tim 6:5; 2 Tim 3:8), in his heart (Gen 6:5; 8:21; Jer 17:9; Ezek 36:26; Mark
7:21); in his will (John 8:34; Rom 7:14; 8:7; Eph 2:3), as well as in his
conscience (Jer 17:9; 1 Cor 8:7; 10, 12; 10:28; 1 Tim 4:2; Titus 1:15)? For the
knowledge of truth Scripture always refers us to objective revelation, to the
word and instruction that proceeded from God (Deut 4:1; Isa. 8:20; John 5:39; 2
Tim 3:15; 2 Pet 1:19; etc.). And where the objective truth is personally
appropriated by us by faith, that faith still is never like a fountain that
from itself brings forth the living water but like a channel that conducts the
water to us from another source.
Rome, understanding perfectly well this
impossibility of religious and moral autonomy, bound human beings to the
infallible church on pain of losing the salvation of their souls for Roman
Catholic Christians the infallible church, and so in the final analysis the
infallible pope, is the foundation of their faith. The words Papa dixit (the Pope has spoken) is the
end of all back talk. History teaches, however, that this theoretical and
practical infallibility of the church has at all times encountered contradiction
and opposition, not only in the churches of the Reformation but inside the
Roman Catholic Church as well. It is not
unbelievers primarily but the devout who have always experienced this power of
the hierarchy as a galling bond to their conscience. Throughout the
centuries there has not only been scientific, societal, and political
resistance but also deeply religious and moral opposition to the hierarchical
power of the church. It simply will not do to explain this opposition in terms
of unbelief and disobedience and intentionally to misconstrue the religious
motives underlying the opposition of sects and movements ….
At the proper time everywhere and in every
sphere of life, a certain radicalism is needed to restore balance, to make
further development possible, and not let the stream of ongoing life bog down.
In art and science, state and society, similarly in religion and morality,
there gradually develops a mindless routine that oppresses and does violence to
the rights of personality, genius, invention, inspiration, freedom, and
conscience. But in due time there always arises a man or woman who cannot bear
that pressure, casts off the yoke of bondage and again takes up the cause of
human freedom and that of Christian liberty. These are the turning points of
history. Thus Christ himself rose up
against the tradition of the elders and returned to the law and the prophets.
Thus one day the Reformation had the courage, not in the interest of some
scientific, social, or political goal, but in the name of Christian humanity,
to protest against Rome’s hierarchy. Frequently, even in the case of the
sects and movements that later arose in the Protestant churches, that religious
and ethical motive is undeniably present. So-called biblical theology also
defends an important part of religious truth. When a church and theology prefer
peace and quiet over struggle, they themselves trigger the opposition that
reminds them of their Christian calling and task. Rome, in the nature of the case, can never approve of such opposition
and has to condemn it in advance. The Reformation is itself the product of such
opposition and cannot withhold from others what it assumed for itself. And Holy
Scripture, though far removed in spirit from all revolutionary resistance,
nevertheless, in Peter’s regal statement “we must obey God rather than men”
(Acts 5:29), legitimates the right to oppose every human decree that is
contrary to the Word of God (Vol 1, pgs 80-82).
No comments:
Post a Comment