Actually, I like Tim Enloe. Really, I do. Still, he as a bad habit of characterizing a conversation in an interesting light. Actually, I only barely recognize the conversation that Tim summarizes in what we can only hope will be his closing post on the subject. I think he re-works the conversation in the way he does because the conversation didn’t really go that well for him.
http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=6077&Data=3003#posts
Well, at least the important issue of what “reform” even is has been put on table by all this. Those who think the Reformation formulations are the end of the discussion have revealed an attitude which would have prevented the Reformation itself from happening, because they don’t recognize the possibility of fruitfully engaging the tradition understanding that it isn’t a self-contained, self-justifying whole.
1.) I never even came close to saying that there isn’t any possibility of fruitfully engaging the Reformed tradition. Nor, do I necessarily think of it as a self-contained, self-justifying whole, though it could very well be. It all depends on whether or not the people who engage the Reformed tradition ever end up doing so fruitfully. I’ve read a great deal on the engagements so far and I see a lot of good fruit but the good fruit I see is a reclaiming of the Reformed tradition. All the so called “extensions of the Reformed tradition” that I’ve read (especially on justification) is just pretty lousy stuff, that should not satisfy anybody who realizes the depth and width of all that justification by faith alone touches.
2.) As to my attitude … well, I kind of like Ronald Reagan on this score. Reagan said, “trust but verify.” I trust Tim but having looked at what is being offered as a replacement for justification by faith alone, whether it is from Reformed Catholicism, Federal Vision, or New Perspective I can honestly say that I can not verify that it isn’t just another arrangement of justification that is analytic and process at its core.
My concerns in all this have been chiefly the restricting of “the Gospel” both in proclamation to others and belief by others to an explicit consciousness of JBFA – a restriction which seems to prevent “the Gospel” from being readily seen in the Gospels, the Book of Acts, and 1 Corinthians 15.
1.) Tim’s problem here is that he is reading the Gospels, Acts, and I Corinthians 15 in isolation from the rest of the Bible. It’s like saying because you can’t find the name of God in the book of Esther therefore the Bible really isn’t about God. This is nonsense.
2.) I would say that justification is found all over those books that Tim cites if only implicitly. Justification, soteriologically speaking touches everything, therefore if one finds a soteriological fact in any book there will be some way in which justification will eventually be involved.
3) Tim greatly mischaracterizes the conversation because I’ve clearly admitted that people can be justified apart from an explicit consciousness of jbfa. What I have denied is that someone can explicitly deny justification by faith alone and still be considered as justified.
4.) By Tim’s downgrading the importance of justification by faith alone Tim has revealed that it is, for him, no longer the hinge upon which Reformed theology turns. All I can do is recommend people read Buchanan’s book on Justification or Owen’s book on Justification or Chemnitz’s writing on Justification, or Turretin’s writings on Justification or …. (Let me guess Tim … these are all standard Reformed manuals.)
Tim’s downgrade on jbfa and the downgrade that we are seeing through much of the Reformed Church on this doctrine is, in my estimation, an attempt to rebuild Christendom with those who clearly deny jbfa. Christianity is being assaulted and our numbers are dwindling and there seems to be ostensibly Reformed people with opinions that one way to rebuild the crumbling walls of Christendom is by removing those doctrines that divide the epistemologically self-conscious Reformed Biblical believer from those who are seen as sharing our Christian morality. If this project is successful Christendom will go into full eclipse. It is only a Reformation Biblical worldview that includes jbfa that can successfully rebuild a genuine Christendom.
Other than that, my concern is with the demonstrable massive historical ignorance of the Reformed community as a whole regarding the state of the Church prior to the Reformation, including but not limited to (1) the continuity of the Reformers with previous tradition, (2) their knowledge of and creative interaction with issues our standard Manuals never mention, and (3) the simply grossly uncharitable sloganeering about other theological viewpoints. These issues remain as legitimate points of discussion regardless of any regrettable flaring up of personal stuff.
As to the above
(1) Anybody who knows Church History understands how much certain early Church fathers influenced the Reformed. The doctrines of the Reformation didn’t jump out of the Reformers heads as Athena jumped out of Zeus’ head. For Tim to suggest that anybody who disagrees with his profundity doesn’t know Church history is just silly. I’m glad to admit the continuity of the Reformers with previous tradition. Is Tim glad to admit the substantial discontinuity of the Reformers with previous tradition?
(2) Tim keeps mentioning his “standard Manuals” without defining which exact books he has in mind. Now, I’m not the Medieval Church Historian that Tim is but I’ve done a great deal of reading that I’m pretty confident extends well beyond Tim’s “standard Manuals.” This “standard manual” line is just a sophisticated way to disparage somebody who doesn’t agree with Tim.
I will continue to insist however that on this point Tim is just plain upset that people haven’t come to the conclusion that he or his favorite authors have come in light of these “non-Standard manuals.” I will repeat, yet again, there is a host of ways to read the Reformation, the theological/philosophical/cultural influences on the Reformers, and what I call the “psycho-history of the Reformation.” For Tim to insist that his reading must be the standard that measures all other readings is just disingenuous.
Still, I’m all for taking on all comers. The Reformation has nothing to fear from Tim’s non-Standard manuals with their speculation about the Reformers psycho-history.
(3) I quite agree that history can’t fit on a postcard. So, I understand Tim’s concern about sloganeering. Still, I won’t apologize to those who are self consciously against jbfa for any sloganeering I involve myself in. The reason that people are so offended by sloganeering so quickly, I suspect, is because the slogan has hit its target.
Case in point when one doesn’t read the Bible in Systems.
What it boils down is that these guys want a paradigm change and anybody who doesn’t go down river with them is an idiot.