Traditionalism

This is from a Facebook debate I had regarding James Dolezal's defense of Thomism:

Hays 

In his classic monograph (On a Complex Theory of a Simple God), Christopher Hughes unpacks the Thomistic notion of divine simplicity as a set of six distinct propositions:

(i) God is not composed of extended parts; hence, he is not, and does not have, a body.

(ii) God is not composed of substantial form–in virtue of which he is the kind of thing he is–and form-receiving matter–in virtue of which he is the particular thing he is. God is instead pure self-subsistent form, devoid of matter of any kind.

iii) God is not "composed" of act and potency. There is no distinction in God between an element by virtue of which he has certain potentialities and an element by virtue of which those potentialities are actualized. Consequently, God is entirely immutable and atemporal.

(iv) God is not composed of essence and anything disjoint from that essence. While there is a difference between the individual, Socrates, and his essence (humanity), there is no difference between God and his essence (Godhead or Deity).

(v) God is not composed of substance and accidents. There are not in God any properties outside of the divine essence which enter into composition with that essence. Instead, his wisdom, his power, his goodness, and the like are all the same as the divine essence (which is to say, the same as God), and hence all the same as one another.

(vi) God is not composed of essence and esse (existence)–or what-he-is and a that-he-is. The divine essence (God) is pure subsistent existence, inherent in nothing distinct from it, and having nothing dissect from it inherent in it.

(Ibid., pp3-4)

Now, even if you happen to agree with all that, are Dolezal's evangelical supporters claiming that you can derive each and every one of those particular propositions from Scripture? Likewise, are they alleging that all the church fathers subscribe to the same six propositions? 

If not, what kind of divine simplicity are they alleging that Scripture attributes to God? 

BTW, how many of Dolezal's supporters even understand these highly recondite categories and distinctions? I don't deny that some of his supports understand them.

Josh 

Unfortunately, Frame has become his own tradition. A dangerous place to be.

Hays

Everyone is selective about tradition. By your logic, everyone is in a dangerous place.

i) Every professing Christian is selective in his appropriation of tradition. That's unavoidable because there is no uniform tradition in historical theology. Church history contains a vast plethora of divergent traditions, so you can't avoid selectivity even if you wish to. You can't simultaneously adhere to divergent theological traditions. Therefore, some sifting and sorting is inevitable.

Novelty is unavoidable, even in historical theology. You won't find the Westminster Confession in the 13C. 

There are different ways a theological tradition can be novel. Even if it contained nothing but traditional elements, the way in which that package includes some traditional elements while excluding other traditional elements makes the combination novel.

Or it may include some theological innovations, in addition to traditional elements. That's something you get in Anselm, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, &c. 

Every theological tradition is a novel package in some respects.

ii) Some professing Christians do their own sifting and sorting while others default to second parties to do that for them. Some professing Christians simply identify with whatever theological tradition they were born into, raised in, or married into.

An obvious problem with this is that it makes one's profession an accident of birth. A coin flip where the theological tradition you happen to profess is a random result of external circumstances that have nothing to do with theological truth. If your parents were Lutheran, you're Lutheran. If your parents were Methodist, you're Methodist. If your parents were Pentecostal, you're Pentecostal. If your parents were Catholic, you're Catholic. If your parents were Mormon, you're Mormon. 

That's an unreliable basis for theological identity. Geography shouldn't be the basis of your theological affiliation. 

iii) Christian duties in that regard are person-variable, depending on one's aptitude and opportunities. If you're a 19C German immigrant with little formal education who belongs to a German-speaking community in the midwest, it's fairly inevitable that you will be Lutheran. That subculture is the only frame of reference you have.

Due to the power of social conditioning, in many cases God graciously puts the elect in churches where they will hear the Gospel. The churches vary in their theological accuracy, but they are sufficiently accurate that parishioners have an object of saving faith. 

iv) However, every Christian generation has an obligation to assess the theological legacy handed down to it. God requires us to be loyal to him. We don't have a right to delegate what be believe to a second party, handing him a blank check which he fills in and we sign. That's just playacting. It can't be, "I believe whatever he believes". That's not the standard of comparison.

v) Although individual duties vary, Frame is precisely the kind of person, due to his intellect and education, who has a duty to evaluate the theological traditions at our disposal. You can disagree with his conclusions, but he's doing what someone with his gifts is supposed to do.

Josh

Also, Frame has a habit of novelty making. His theistic personalism is one, his triperspectivism is another. If the church missed something for 2,000 years, and this generation all the sudden got it right, we're in trouble.

Hays

i) That's a classic objection which Catholic apologists and theologians raised in opposition to the Protestant Reformers. By the same token, that's an objection which Orthodox Jews raise to Christian theology. 

ii) What does Josh mean by "the church"? Is that a euphemism for theologians, church fathers, &c.? If so, what makes that a representative sample? That's an infinitesimal fraction of God's people. 

iii) Is Josh suggesting that traditional interpretations are unquestionable? For instance, does Josh deem it impossible for archeological discoveries to correct a traditional interpretation? 

iv) It's a problem when people take intellectual shortcuts ("That's a theological innovation!"). That's not a discerning way to arrive at the truth. 

v) Why does Mike Ricardi like Josh's comment? Isn't he a pretrib dispensationalist? And isn't that a theological innovation in the history of the church?

These Nonsensical Objections from Bryan Cross are Not to be Trusted

In addition to Bryan’s “begging the question” objection, he placed several other predictable objections to Gregg Allison’s work,“Roman Catholic Theology and Practice: An Evangelical Assessment”.

Bryan’s objections begin here.

At one point, discussing an interview in conjunction with the release of the book, Bryan is kind enough to note, “In the next part of the interview, as Allison lays out the Catholic system, he does so quite fairly and accurately.” A few lines down, however, we see this:

So Allison starts his interview affirming the importance of approaching the question systematically and evaluating the Catholic paradigm on its own terms, but already here he is (a) making use of a consumerism approach as a way of critiquing the Catholic paradigm, which rejects the consumerism paradigm, and (b) making use of his biblicist assumption (“not biblical”) to critique the Catholic paradigm. So instead of evaluating the Catholic paradigm on its own terms, he is evaluating it on Evangelical terms, and thus begging the question.

In the book, which Bryan appears not to have read so far, there is clearly an effort to present both sides in an objective way; that is, the Catholic viewpoint “fairly and honestly”, and also, the “Evangelical” assessment, “fairly and honestly”. That is a hallmark of the book.

But in his critique, Bryan makes some assumptions of his own here. I’ve extended these from two to three (breaking the “consumerism” objection into two parts):

A. Allison makes use of a “consumerism approach”
B. The “Catholic paradigm” rejects the “consumerism paradigm”
C. Allison works with “Biblicist” assumptions (not “biblical” assumptions)

Let’s look at Bryan’s objections here one at a time:

In the choice between “catholicity” and “correctness”, “correctness” should win every time

The topic of Biblicism is being raised again, in a way that is not helpful.

For example, citing this article, I think (the provided link simply went to a TGC page), Mark Jones has made this statement on Reformation21:

Theology, thankfully, has never been done in terms of "pure biblicism." When it has, the consequences have always been deleterious. "Pure biblicism" is a Socinian way of theologizing, historically speaking. And biblicism can lead someone to hell.

And Ryan McGraw writing at The Aquila Report makes this statement:

Frame unashamedly notes that he includes less historical theology than other comparable works because he wants to be biblical. While this sounds appealing to many Christians, it is impossible to do theology in a historical vacuum… Ignoring historical theology as a conversation partner in the name of producing a theology that is more biblical gives readers a false impression and threatens to confuse Frame’s innovations with a bare reading of Scripture.

A third writer picks up McGraw's argument and takes it further:

Of all of Frame’s bizarre constructions, the one which seems to have gained favor among the confessional-revisionists of our circles is his claim to adopt an approach that is “something close to biblicism.” This sounds quite admirably sola-scripturish, but ultimately it amounts to readily discarding the confessional formulations of the church anytime that the Christian, alone with his Bible, arrives at a personal interpretation distinct from confessional orthodoxy.

First of all, no “Biblicist” that I am aware of advocates “readily discarding the confessional formulations of the church anytime … [a Christian] … arrives at a personal interpretation distinct from confessional orthodoxy”. This is just simply a mischaracterization of what is being said.

Second, Jones shows, in making the statement that I cited above, that he has failed to read the original article he cited with any discernment:

Why I Love John Frame's "Biblicism" & You Should Too

http://calvinistinternational.com/2014/02/28/love-john-frames-biblicism/

Living dangerously!

I've been asked by several people to comment on Tom Chantry's recent screed about John Frame:

http://chantrynotes.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/re-framing-reformed-baptist-doctrine/

To lay my cards on the table from the outset let me say this: it is my firm opinion that John Frame is one of the most dangerous characters in the broadly Reformed world today.  His ideas are so disruptive of any system of doctrine and ultimately of any reasonable approach to holiness that I find myself distrusting of those who cite him.  Perhaps this is unfair.  Perhaps they have not read far enough, or understood sufficiently.  But when I see John Frame referenced favorably among those who are meant to be confessional Reformed Baptists, I find that I am terrified by what is coming in our movement.

Thankfully, some of Frame's students took the precautionary measure of wearing a garlic necklace or crucifix under their T-shirt to ward off evil spirits emanating from his sulfurous lips.

By 1992, when I entered seminary, Frame was among the better-known professors in Escondido.

I don't know what that's supposed to mean. WSC was a smallish school with a smallish faculty. I expect all the faculty were more or less equally well-known to the student body, as well as to members of the respective churches in which the faculty ministered. 

Then in 2011 he published The Escondido Theology, a wide-ranging attack on his former employers which suggested that Westminster Seminary in California has departed from Reformed tradition.

Actually, it was mainly a critique of some of his former colleagues, not his former employers. 

I have interacted some with these questions online, and following the publication of The Escondido Theology my letter of support for WSC was published on their website.  

That's odd. One of Frame's targets was Scott Clark. Yet Clark excludes Calvinistic Baptists like Chantry and his dad from the ranks of the truly Reformed. Go figure. 

In addition, Chantry acts as though Frame is an outlier. But Frame is by no means their only critic. Take this site, which has many erudite objections to WSC:

http://calvinistinternational.com/

However, in Frame’s discussion of history, an oddity arose.  His understanding of the advance of truth was somewhat revolutionary in character.  On more than one occasion he suggested to us that whenever the church has grasped some new understanding of the truth, the breakthrough has been accomplished by two men: a revolutionary and a systemetizer.  For instance, in a day of confusion regarding the nature of Christ, Athanasius was something of a revolutionary – both in doctrine and in personality.  He aggressively – one might even say pugnaciously – advanced a new and better understanding.  He was followed, however, by Augustine, who gathered the strands of his thought together into a comprehensive system.  The other example of this which leaps to mind is Frame’s discussion of Luther and Calvin – an analysis which would drive any Lutheran to utter distraction!...Frame, however, was not quite doing Hegel, whose philosophy and methods Frame rejects.  His view, however, tended to glorify the revolutionary.  

But if Luther is the revolutionary to Calvin's systematizer, does Chantry have any evidence that Frame glorified Luther rather than Calvin? 

The ultimate systemization was not a synthesis of old and new, but rather a triumphant re-assertion of the new.  As a Reformed and biblical Christian, I did and still do find this rather disturbing.  Frame would assert that the “revolutions” of men like Athanasius and Luther were in fact recoveries of old biblical truth. 

So it's not in fact a "reassertion of the new," but a "recovery of old biblical truth." Yet those are hardly interchangeable concepts. So Chantry's characterization is incoherent. 

More disturbing, though, was a growing suspicion among my classmates regarding how Frame saw himself, particularly in the history of the field of apologetics.  Frame was long considered the star pupil of Westminster apologist Cornelius Van Til, whose presuppositional approach has certainly been revolutionary in some sense.  During my time in Escondido we often heard Frame complaining that reconstructionists such as Greg Bahnsen had misread Van Til; they wanted to be his interpreters but had misunderstood his legacy.  The question emerged: did Frame perceive himself as the systemetizing successor to Van Til’s revolutionary legacy?  The publication of Cornelius Van Til, an Analysis of his Thought in 1995 seemed to give legitimacy to that speculation.

Notice that Chantry offers no counterevidence to rebut Frame's interpretation of Van Til. In Chantry's eyes, Frame is wrong because Frame is right. 

Frame’s answer was a resounding “No!”  The perspectives, he insisted, are and must be equal.  The situational and existential inform the normative as much as and in the same fashion that the normative informs them.  To put this again in layman’s terms, yes, the objective word of God ought to affect the way in which I view the opinions formed from my own personality and my context, but at the same time and in the same way my personality and context ought to inform my understanding of the word of God.  And that, my friends is relativistic hermeneutic – plain and simple.

I'd simply point out that you don't have to depend on Chantry's slanted summary. If you want an exposition of Frame's position, you can go straight to the source:

http://www.frame-poythress.org/a-primer-on-perspectivalism-revised-2008/

And if you want a sophisticated analysis of his position, try this:

http://www.proginosko.com/docs/Frame_Festschrift_Essay.pdf

Second, Frame must essentially reject many of the implications of the Fall.  To the Reformed thinker (which by this time it should be evident to the reader that John Frame is not), it is true that my existential person was created by God, but it was also wrecked by the fall, and in my sin I am quite bad at distinguishing which parts of my own opinions are divine in origin and which are corrupted.

Chantry's description of sin's noetic affects is more Manichaean than Reformed. The unregenerate are "totally depraved." But due to regeneration and sanctification, the Christian mind is no longer "wrecked" by the Fall. 

The Reformed thinker, then, may acknowledge that his personality and his context play a role in his reading of Scripture, but he views this as a shameful fact, a result of his fallen nature and continuing sin – something to be fought against with all the power of the Spirit.

There is nothing inherently "shameful" about a Christian's personality and social context playing a role in his reading of Scripture. That's both unavoidable and providential. 

The Word is to take precedence over our own prejudices.  

No doubt. But the fact that we don't come to Scripture as a blank slate is hardly equivalent to "prejudice" (with its pejorative connotations). 

The effect of this on every theological discipline is profound.  I once attempted to posit to Frame a hierarchy of theological disciplines.  It seemed evident to me that at the root of all theology is exegesis.  Exegesis drives hermeneutic, hermeneutic drives systematics, and systematics drive all other applications of theology.  This was scarcely original to me; I learned it in systematic theology lectures, where Dr. Robert Strimple’s mode of lecture was to spend days in the original languages parsing texts to arrive at answers to theological questions. 

That's not how I remember Strimple's teaching style. Although Strimple spent some time on linguistic analysis, exegetical theology wasn't really his metier. His general emphasis was more on historical theology. 

Put another way, although he was influenced the John Murray's theological method, he wasn't by any means as consistently exegetical as Murray. Indeed, Strimple really didn't have an overarching theological methodology, that I could discern. But his approach was predominately historical theology.

Somewhat to my dismay, Frame was dismissive of the very idea that any theological discipline might take precedence over another.  In his mind such a hierarchy amounted to idolatry of the normative perspective.

Yet Chantry goes on to chide Frame for failing to be sufficiently deferential to historical theology. Indeed, Frame champions "something close to biblicism":

http://www.frame-poythress.org/in-defense-of-something-close-to-biblicism-reflections-on-sola-scriptura-and-history-in-theological-method/

http://www.frame-poythress.org/reply-to-richard-muller-and-david-wells/

So, once again, Chantry's characterization is wide of the mark.  

In the mid-1990s the faculty in Escondido was in an odd spot with regard to church attendance.  While Westminster is most often associated with the OPC, none of the faculty attended OP congregations.  The regional presbytery at that time was deeply influenced by reconstructionism and was thus very anti-Westminster.  Most of the faculty either attended Escondido Christian Reformed Church (now part of the URC) or New Life Presbyterian Church – a PCA congregation known for its contemporary approach to worship.  John Frame not only attended New Life, he was heavily involved in the direction of its music ministry. While Frame, a gifted pianist and organist, regularly accompanied hymns at Westminster chapels, in church he promoted a very contemporary approach to worship.
From the moment that Godfrey’s selection as president was made known, the student body began speculating about how long Frame would remain on faculty.  It seemed unbelievable that a president so focused on the Regulative Principle and its traditional application would long tolerate a professor who was beginning to formulate the ideas which he would advance in his 1996 book, Worship in Spirit and Truth, and its 1997 sequel, Contemporary Worship Music, a Biblical Defense. 

Is Chantry suggesting that the worship style at New Life Pres in Escondido was anomalous in relation to PCA churches generally? Does he think most PCA churches operate according to the "traditional application" of the regulative principle (e.g. exclusive a cappella Psalmnody)? For a reality check:

http://www.frame-poythress.org/psalm-singing-in-the-opc-and-pca/

Amazingly, Frame was not only our Professor of Apologetics, he also taught the class on Christian Ethics.  

Why is that "amazing"? Frame was clearly the best qualified professor at WSC to teach Christian ethics. 

While not all of this class was equally troubling, during his lengthy lectures on the Second Commandment we heard a Westminster professor systematically dismantling the traditional Reformed understanding of worship.
To clarify, the Regulative Principle is the view that we may only do that which God commands in worship; any innovation in the elements of worship is a form of idolatry.  The Regulative Principle is often contrasted with the Normative Principle, while the former was the view of the Reformed churches at the time of the Reformation, the latter was favored among the Lutherans.  The Normative Principle holds that anything God has not expressly forbidden in worship is permissible.

i) To begin with, although Chantry singles out Frame, his criticism is really an indictment of the OPC and PCA generally. Neither denomination has a policy of adhering to the Puritan style of worship. 

ii) Chantry illicitly collapses Reformed worship into Puritan worship. By that logic, Anglican Calvinist theologians like J. I. Packer, William Perkins, John Jewel, Nicholas Ridley, and Augustus Toplady aren't truly Reformed. 

iii) Typically, Chantry expresses his disapproval rather than engaging the argument. Here is how Frame argues for his position:

http://www.frame-poythress.org/the-regulative-principle-scripture-tradition-and-culture/

http://www.frame-poythress.org/a-fresh-look-at-the-regulative-principle-a-broader-view/

A more Reformed observer could tell you that, sin being what it is, any attempt at balance will always elevate the existential perspective.  Frame’s personal tastes were bound to win out.  The second answer is this: Frame’s epistemology is relativistic, and if all relativists are necessarily dishonest, the dishonesty is even more necessary for someone trying to pretend not to be a relativist in the context of a biblical institution...In other words, logic-bending rhetoric in defense of Frame’s personal inclinations was inevitable. 

i) Frame is a classic music buff. A classical pianist. If his personal tastes won out, New Life Pres would have classical music rather than contemporary Christian music. So Chantry's allegation is patent nonsense. Frame defends CCM in spite of, not because of, his personal musical taste.

ii) Apropos (i), Frame defends CCM as a matter of principle, against what he deems to be artistically and theologically uninformed criticisms. 

To confessionalists – Presbyterian or Baptist – the confessional documents represent the settled corporate interpretations coming down to us from the ages.  They are not individual interpretations (no individual can authorize or adopt a confession), but rather the summary of the teaching of the church.  They are secondary standards under Scripture, but they create safe boundaries around our interpretation of Scripture.  To transgress those boundaries in favor of an individual or private interpretation is to tread on thin ice.  Whereas years or in some cases centuries of theological experience went into the language of the confession – often recognizing the dangers of certain misstatements – we live in an age in which far too many a Christian and even theologian is likely to stand alone with his Bible and say, “It seems to me…”  Confessionalism is intended to prevent this error.

i) Does the 1646 edition of the Westminster Confession represent the safe boundary while the 1788 edition represents thin ice, or vice versa? Which one codifies the "settled interpretation"? Does the 1646 edition of the London Confession represent the safe boundary while the 1677 edition represents thin ice, or vice versa? Which one codifies the "settled interpretation"? What about the Savoy Declaration in relation to the Three Forms of Unity? Or the Augsburg Confession and the Thirty-nine Articles? Whichever one we subscribe to will transgress some boundaries of another. So which one captures the "collective wisdom of the church"? 

ii) Which confession should he confess? Musn't Chantry exercise his individual interpretation of Scripture to decide which competing confession is the most Scriptural? Or does he just flip a coin? 

iii) Why does Chantry hold Frame to a confessional standard while giving Meredith Kline a pass? Chantry tells us "following the publication of The Escondido Theology my letter of support for WSC was published on their website." Yet Kline was a theological maverick who bucked Reformed tradition. And Kline was one of Frame's principal targets in The Escondido Theology. Chantry's double standard is glaringly duplicitous. 

Likewise, Frame also targeted Jason Stellman, who later converted to Rome. Wasn't Frame's critique prescient in retrospect? Wasn't Chantry's supporting letter nearsighted in retrospect? 

By Confession Alone?

In response to this comment, I attempted to post the following at Scott Clark’s Heidelblog. (My comment was “awaiting modification” for some time today, but as of the last time I checked, it has been removed):

* * *

Scott – of course I still believe in Sola Scriptura, justification Sola Fide. And no popes, anywhere.

I’d like to preface my comment here by saying that I believe that the Reformation was absolutely a movement of the Holy Spirit, and that the fruitful period of theological study that followed the Reformation (for 100 years and more) was absolutely the richest and most profitable period of study in the 2000 year history of the church. The many confessions of faith that came out of that period are absolutely worthy of our study and reverence.

I also can’t fail to comment on the tendency, which has historically been manifested among Christians, to the effect that “if you believe A, therefore you believe B. Since you believe B, and B is heretical, you’re a heretic”. I believe that tendency to be both unChristian and unhelpful.

You defend biblicism, in this case, you defend the apparently even more radical biblicism of Frame’s lieutenant. In every case of biblicism someone is still interpreting Scripture. That interpretation leads to some confession, whether formal or informal. In this case, it’s his reading of Scripture that trumps all. There’s your pope.

First, I would urge you to re-think your comment here that Hays is anyone’s “lieutenant”. He is a clear thinker in his own right, and he has no problem to challenge anyone, including Frame.