I’ve stuck my toe back into the justification – Federal Vision debate over at Doug Wilson’s place.
http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=6077&qdata=2314#posts37240
My conversation partner is Mr. Tim Enloe. Tim’s specialty is Medieval Church history and he is quite well read and extraordinarily intelligent. I can genuinely say that I would love for Tim to teach Church history to my children.
However, Tim is wrong on justification by faith alone. Tim is part of a burgeoning movement called “Reformed Catholicism” (a kind of step-child of Federal Vision). The problem with this movement is that it can be lauded or denigrated depending exactly on how one defines the movement. For Tim, Reformed Catholicism at least means no longer insisting on justification by faith alone as, as Calvin put it, “the hinge of the Reformation.” In this denial one is left wondering what is “Reformed” about “Reformed Catholicism.”
Tim has disavowed that justification by faith alone (jbfa) is the doctrine that is central, has primacy, and should be esteemed. Now, this doesn’t mean that Tim doesn’t believe in some form of jbfa but it does mean that in his reducing its importance to the point that it should no longer serve as a divider between orthodoxy and unorthodoxy Tim has left the Reformed reservation.
We need to understand that jbfa is a river in which all the tributaries of Reformed soteriology flow. Should we mess with jfba, by necessity we must also alter our thinking on other doctrinal issues like penal substitutionary atonement, total depravity, sanctification, perseverance of the saints, and others. Tim’s desire to altar jfba understandings will inevitably lead to altering Reformed theology as a whole.
Below is a reproduction, on my end, of the conversation with Tim at Mablog.
Come on Tim … just admit it … all your huffing and puffing is masquerade on your part seeking to hide your desire for a Kuhnian paradigm change. In all your denials of the centrality of jbfa and in all your bashing of “ossification” and “repristination,” and in all your lamenting about “dying in the doldrums of rote repetition, self-righteousness, and sheer fear of the unknown and different,” what we are seeing is merely the means of a bully who is trying to force and/or shame people into his preferred paradigm change.
By the time we buy what you are selling there is very little of the Reformed trademark left. Indeed, I would guess that the only reason that you maintain the word “Reformed,” (as in “Reformed Catholicism”) is that you hope that in doing so you can dupe Reformed people into thinking that they aren’t really leaving a set identifiable theology for a radically different set identifiable theology.
What we desperately need is people to nail their colors to the mast. What we desperately need is for people like Tim to admit, “Reformation theology has outlived its usefulness but that’s ok because I have thought of something better that will take its place.” At least then everyone would know that the notion of “Reformed” is being cast aside for something new and improved.
I never said there was no way to choose among competing psycho-history schools that will put us in the mind of the Reformers. That is you, once again, putting words in my mouth that will serve to advance your narrow minded intolerant cause. The point was that I’m not buying your revisionist school. Further, the point was that there are plenty of other schools out there that read the psycho-history differently that can be appealed to in defiance of your preferred interpretation.
Turning to the matter of corrections. Clearly when a movement is in error corrections are needed. However when a movement is not in error it would be error to embrace corrections. So all your whining about Reformed people not accepting corrections reduces down to the issue between us, which is … “Does the Reformed movement need to accept corrections.” You seem to suggest the affirmative in massive doses. While, I, on the issue of justification, have yet to see any corrections that are an improvement. I certainly don’t see them in the Federal Vision writings of which I’ve read a great deal. So, when you come up with some corrections that actually are beneficial let me know and I’ll be more than glad to consider them.
The really sad thing in the Reformed church today is that we are awash in a sea of innovative errors by factions on every side. There are the Federal Vision errors. There are the R2Kt virus errors. There are the New Perspective errors. There are the Peter Enns inspiration errors. Indeed, it is easier to accept some error of some sort then it is to return to the old paths.
And of course in the end to embrace any of the errors of the well intentioned people who are promulgating them will not bring us or them closer to what they say they want, but instead will usher in a new dark age.
You didn’t like the article by which the church stands or falls. How about Calvin’s words instead?
Justification by Faith Alone is the hinge of the Reformation.
If we get rid of the hinge then the door no longer works Tim.
In my estimation the whole work of Federal Vision, like the work of the New Perspective is a work dedicated to eliminating the barrier of jbfa that keeps Christendom from being rebuilt along the lines of some other kind of understanding of justification. Now, I’m a big believer in Christendom, but a Christendom that is refashioned at the cost of justification by faith alone is not a Christendom that I’m interested in simply because it wouldn’t really be Christendom.
So my advice is that has much as Federal Vision has to recommend it (and there really is much to recommend it) in the end Reformed people cannot build bridges to Federal Vision precisely because of its abandonment of justification by faith alone. It is a poison to Reformed thinking that is every bit as dangerous as R2Kt poison.
A different poison to be sure, but a poison all the same.
