The Tongues of Calvin & the Angelic Doctor
I must confess that I am disheartened by Reformation infighting as of late; we are typically such a jovial bunch.
Yes, yes, yes, I understand that we have had our conflicts. The Baptists ripped off the Congregationalists, the Congregationalists ripped of the Presbyterians, and the Presbyterians came in a few years after the 1644 Baptist confession rolled off the presses (a fact that is almost as amusing to me as the fact that American Presbyterians try to label themselves as Truly Reformed even though their confession is the most recent of the whole lot). Yes, we have a more checkered history than Ross and Rachel. But in the end, we know we’re supposed to end up together… right? Yet here we stand, in the midst of another lovers' quarrel, we can do no other; God help us.
The most recent flare up comes from an unlikely source — Thomas (Aquinas. Not the Train. I think I can. I think I can). Ye’ old Angelic Doctor is at it again; He is stirring up trouble from purgatory. While he is being purged of such abhorrent theological positions as transubstantiation and prayer to Mary, we’re out here under the great cloud of witnesses trying to live a life by grace alone through faith alone.
Allow me to lay my cards on the table up front — I don’t have a problem with Thomas’ doctrine of God. As far as philosophy goes, It is quite beautiful, actually. Want to talk about an unmoved mover, causation, ontology, goodness, or teleology, then fine. These arguments and the thought that Thomas contributed to them are of benefit under certain situations. That is to say, they are valuable tools in the belt of the Christian apologist. But they are philosophy, not God breathed scripture. Likewise, Calvin had much to say about the nature of Christ as autotheos. Much was articulated differently than saints from the previous millennia. Are we to hold this up as the standard? Are we to dismiss it as philosophical ramblings of a second generation reformer? Perhaps we are to measure it against scripture as we do all other claims. Shall we discuss Divine Simplicity, the trinity, or the Analogia Entis? All well and good. Let’s have that discussion. But for the love of God (truly) may we do so with charity?
You can not with a straight face tell me that the articulation of Aquinas would have been understood by the first century saint (Any more than we can say the articulations of Calvin were lockstep with his predecessors). It may have been understood by Augustine, given the size of his mind and his familiarity with both Plato and Aristotle. It would be foolish to believe that Augustine’s Neoplatonic flavored Christianity would be friendly towards Thomas’ Aristotelian expression. They were like oil and water. Cats and dogs. Unitarians and orthodoxy. They just don’t mix. The only reason that Augustine and Aquinas can be appealed to for support of the same doctrines is because of their unified underpinnings— they both appeal to scripture. Likewise, this is what I am appealing to as a resolution to the current hullabaloo. Scripture. Scripture alone is our sole and infallible rule of faith. And secondary derivations must assume the appropriate position in our reasoning. (Have not popes and councils erred and contradicted themselves?)
Though I speak with the tongues of Calvin and the Angelic Doctor, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
The lack of charity in this discussion is more disturbing than the fact that a bunch of 21st century Protestants are yearning for Roman-scholasticism (and yes I understand the claim that the authors of the aforementioned Protestant confessions were huge fans). I understand that in speaking of God without parts that the confessions were leaning upon scholastic tradition and definitions (often explicitly Thomistic). This does not allow us, who claim that the sole infallible rule of faith is divine scripture, to treat one another as outcasts. Can we be real for a moment?
Let’s place down our weapons for long enough to acknowledge a few facts.
We are saved by grace alone.
We are saved through faith alone.
That grace and faith is a sovereign gift from God.
We are saved in Christ alone; the second person of the trinity. Uncreated. Coeternal. Very God of very God. Begotten, not made. Equal with the Father and the Spirit in power and majesty.
This Christ assumed a human nature, having been conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. He lived a perfect life of active and passive obedience. Was crucified, died and buried. He rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty.
He will come again to judge the quick and the dead.
We know these truths because they have been revealed to us in Scripture alone.
We live for the glory of God alone.
We are united, in Christ, on account of Christ, to be conformed to the image of Christ.
This side of eternity, we are going to have disagreements. Some of those disagreements will matter. Others won’t. This is not a plea for unity at the cost of truth. It is a plea for charity in light of the ultimate truth. If we are in union with Christ, we are united with one another. There is no need for faction making. Especially the Latin variety; fastidium factiones if you will. Yet here we are casting aspersions at blood-bought brothers. Here we are throwing knives at the backs of those for whom Christ died. Here we are rattling the bars of our own cages. We insist that our particular expression and emphasis is the only way to proceed. (Regardless of the millions of saints who expressed their simple faith in the simple God and his simple gospel from the simple-to-grasp gospels alone, apart from any nuanced Neo-platonic or Aristotelian categories). Perhaps we can learn from history. Perhaps we can recognize that terms have been used by various groups at various times for various and sundry purposes and that an insistence upon everybody adopting our own preferred language may not be as unquestionably beneficial as we think (you might be shocked to learn that our beloved term homoousious had quite a different meaning in the East prior to Nicaea). Perhaps we can glean some understanding from the underlying principles of Paul’s writings.
“Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers…But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.”
2 Tim 2:14;16 KJV
And
“ But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes. And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth.”
2 Tim 2:23-25 KJV
And
“Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work, to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people. For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another. But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,”
Titus 3:1-5 ESV
This is not to say that truth ought not be argued for nor that it is unimportant; it is very important.
But it ought to be done from the position of hoping the best for our blood-bought-kin. If we be correct, may God grant our brothers repentance. If our brothers be correct, may God grant us repentance. If we both be lacking in understanding then we are in agreement with Aquinas’ final recorded words,
“I can write no more. All that I have written seems like straw.”
In essentials (summarized perhaps in my eight points earlier) unity
in non-essentials (i.e. which confession do we hold) liberty
in all things (all means all right?) charity.
Our love for Christ, or rather His love for us, demands nothing less.
S.D.G.