Alright, now we’re on to the theology, or more specifically the historical theology. Maybe better, we’re on to heavy weight champion of the world of historical theology (less any kind of ear-biting): Richard Muller. Well, Muller may not be the champion of the world, but he’s the man. The fruit of his historical-theological research for the past few decades is a four-volume work under the (admittedly unfortunate, but highly descriptive) title of Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725. Yup, with a title like that, we’re not talking about the New York Times Bestseller List (though it does abbreviate nicely: PRRD). However, since it is about post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, even if its title were Sex, Rock-n-Roll, and Your Best Life NOW!!, it still wouldn’t make the list. The title, as mentioned just before the sex title, is highly descriptive. It’s about the development of Reformed theology after the Reformation. In this post I want to mention two things: what Reformed orthodoxy is not and a thing or two it most definitely is.
What it is not: If anyone has read anything about the generations of Calvinists succeeding the Calvin, they’ve certainly run across the “Calvin-Versus-Calvinism” type of scholarship. This pits Calvin’s X theology against Calvinism’s Y theology. Now, you have to fill in the variables. X usually means Christ-centered or biblical. That is Calvin’s theological thought, it is supposed, was Christ-centered, exegetical, and generally happy, filled with puppy dogs and ice cream. Now, *Enter Succeeding Generations of Calvinists* (audience boos and hisses) – to put it in popular parlance, these big jerks, shod in combat boots, stomped all over the puppy dogs and magically turned the ice cream into doo doo. All the children cried. It was worse than the day the music died. More accurately, the succeeding generations, it is alleged, generated a rigid systems of doctrine (sometimes they say that Calvin himself would not have recognized his own theology in, say, the Westminster Confession of Faith!) that were not Christocentric or biblically/exegetically based, but rather were centered around (that is, organized around) doctrines such at the eternal degree or predestination. So, to that we say: No way, Jose. Nuh-uh, just ain’t so.
What it is, jive turkey: Muller contends that the generations of Reformed thinkers succeeding the Reformation were at least two things: confessional and orthodox. By confessional, he means that these thinkers were in line with the great Reformation emphases: the solas. However, they were also much more, they were part of the great Christian conversation. The Reformation was something of a reaction to particular errors. The Reformed orthodox were in league with the Reformers in opposing those errors, but were also about generating more comprehensive, fuller statements of Christian theology. They wanted to treat all the areas of Christian thought, and to do that they penetrated back through the Reformation into Medieval and Patristic writings. In a word, the Reformed orthodox put feet to the Reformers’ claim to be catholic.
Now, Reformed catholicism is a wonderful thing. Reformed provincialism is, I think, a very dangerous thing. The catholic part is important, as the Reformation was a continuation of the catholic Church. The Roman communion, the Reformers urged, was the group that broke away from catholicism.
What does Reformed catholicism make you think of? Do you like it? Are you scared of it?
[...] I submit to you his post on Reformed Catholicism. [...]
You’re very generous, Jason. Thanks! What’s a year book?
It makes think of guys in Red Silk saying things like, “No one expects Limited Atonement! Bwahahahaha!” Seriously, I have unconsciously ceded the term ‘catholic’ to the Papists. The modern ‘universal’ isn’t any better. Ugh.
Catholic (historically) doesn’t equal Roman Catholic. I’m very happy to call myself Catholic – yup, even with a big C. I think that the Papists have hijacked the term, but it really belongs to the Church that follows Jesus, not the Bishop of Rome.
When we gettin’ together?
I know, I know. I just haven’t succeeded yet in booting them brain my first instincts when I hear the word.
Monday and Tuesday are good for me.
Tim — there was a “reformed catholicism” movement on the web not long ago. Are you familiar with it? I believe the individuals involved were loosely associated (somehow) with the Federal Vision. At some point, the “movement” eventually broke up and website and discussion were deleted.
I don’t know if using the word “Catholic” (especially with a big “C”) is the best way of making the point that you are trying to make. I don’t have an alternative, but I tend to think that the use of that word can create more confusion than clarity in some peoples’ minds.
Maybe I should vote for Reformed provincialism. Isn’t that the label one must accept if he thinks many popular innovations and a spirit of latitudinarianism are not Reformed?
I think Reformed Catholicism can be a meaningful notion by our knowing how Reformed truth unites believers through time and space. Nevertheless, the label will immediately loses force if it is pressed into service for agendas that dilute the Christian Faith. And, as someone has said, Reformed theology is Christianity come into its own.
Hi Brandon. No, I’m not advocating any kind of “provincialism”. And I understand that the Reformers saw themselves as the continuation of the catholic church. And I really like that Tim is approaching this from the perspective of the Reformed Orthodox.
There is a very urgent need, I think, for Protestants of all types to understand what the “catholic church” was all through history — and somehow, as “church” was confused with “visible hierarchy,” we need to find those moments and explicate them and say what went wrong — and to be on guard against rising moralisms and emphasizing God’s grace, while being on guard against the urge to split over definitions of lapsarianism.
I like Tim’s approach, but I think the word “catholicism” can lead to confusion.
In the early 5th century, all the rage was to define one’s Christology by calling Mary “Theotokos.” That word became a mark of Christological orthodoxy. But that word, too, was misunderstood, and the use of it opened the door to all kinds of abuses.
That’s the kind of caution I’m urging. Don’t pick a self-descriptor, an identity, that opens things up for confusion.
I have a general desire to recapture all the historic verbiage. I’m generally unhappy that the RCC has often retained historic language and Protestants have acted as if that’s not important. Aside from possibly brushing aside our historical roots (which are important), it opens us up to attack that we’re really NOT historically Christian, as if Protestantism developed like Mormonism. Protestantism is in the mainstream of the historic Catholic church. Both the Reformers and the Orthodox bent over backwards to demonstrate that.
Tim, I understand. Turretin’s vol 3 starts with the fact that Rome has co-opted the “we are The Church” line, thinking that they can “define” themselves into the ability to be masters of the church. You see that sort of thing all the time today. The papacy is the usurper, though.