From: ChrisandNancy Crain
Subject: Ashbel Green from the Princeton Review
Bhers,
I think the folks from MVP might agree with Ashbel Green’s observations on understanding doctrinal growth and the bible. The quote below is long but here’s a snippet: “I cannot believe that any great practical truth of the Bible has been hidden in such deep darkness, as to have escaped the saints of God, and all the pious and learned interpreters of his holy word, ever since the days of the apostles escaped their vision, that the clear and satisfactory development of it might be ushered on the world at the present time.” This view is nothing new in American Presbyterianism.
I wonder what Green would say about the doctrine of justification by faith alone. It wasn’t taught until Martin Luther in the 16th c.
Here’s the full quote:
From “An Address to the Students of the Theological Seminary at Princeton” by Ashbel Green, May 16, 1831.
Now, we have quite enough of such teachers in our country already; and I do beseech you, my young brethren, not to add yourselves to the number: and that you may not, see to it that you do not leave the seminary, till you have fixed every important doctrinal truth, as it lies in your mind and is an object of your faith, on the firm foundation of God’s word; and till you understand the consistency and harmony of all the parts of a. theological system. Are you ready to ask, whether I do not expect and wish, that you should endeavour to make some improvements in theology, in your future life. I must answer, as the logicians say, by distinguishing.
If, by improvements in theology, the inquiry means an increase of clear perception and deep feeling, in relation to the beauty, glory, excellence, consistency and sweetness of evangelical truth — an increase, too, in a knowledge of the manner in which revealed truth may best be taught, inculcated and defended — an increase, also, of discernment, as to the errors to which the truth is opposed, and the consequent correction of some minor errors in your own minds — an increase, in a word, of your acquaintance and understanding of the Bible in all its parts, and of the glorious scope and tendency of the whole: if only this, or chiefly this, be intended by an improvement in theology, then, I say, I hope you will make great improvements; for I believe that such improvements will always be made by every minister of the gospel, just in proportion as he grows in grace, and persists in studious habits. But if, by improvements in theology, I am to understand what some vain talkers seem to intend, the making of some great and original discoveries of truths and doctrines, that no searching of the Scriptures has ever yet brought to light; then, I say, I pray God that you may never attempt, or think of making any such improvements; for, if you do, I have not a doubt you will run into false and delusive speculations and conclusions, injurious, and perhaps ruinous, to your own souls, and the souls of others.
The fundamental truths of Holy Scripture have been given for the use and edification of God’s people in every age since the canon of Scripture was completed; and I cannot believe that any great practical truth of the Bible has been hidden in such deep darkness, as to have escaped the saints of God, and all the pious and learned interpreters of his holy word, ever since the days of the apostles escaped their vision, that the clear and satisfactory development of it might be ushered on the world at the present time. For myself, I would not listen for a moment to the man who should tell me that he had found something entirely new, and yet very important, in the doctrinal parts of the sacred Scriptures. If it is very new, I am sure it is not very important; for what is very important now, has certainly been so for many centuries past; and it violates all my maxims in regard to God’s revealed will, to admit that it contains fundamental, or very important practical truth, of which not a glimpse has been caught by the holiest and wisest men which the church of Christ has hitherto contained.
On this subject, there is sometimes instituted what seems to me a very senseless analogy. It is asked, shall the most brilliant and important discoveries be frequently made in all the natural sciences, and shall no discoveries and improvements be made in theology, the most interesting and sublime of all sciences? But consider, my young friends, whether there is really any similarity at all between the two cases. On the subject of Christian Theology, God has made a revelation of his will, and all the revelation that he will ever make in this world: and he has made this revelation in a book which, as all Protestants believe, he intended for popular use. But have we received a revelation from God of a system of astronomy? No, certainly, unless we profess to be Hutchinsonians; and even then, we must not admit that the system can be improved. Have we gotten a revealed system of natural philosophy? of mathematics? of mechanics? Of gravitation? of attraction and repulsion? Of hydraulics? of pneumatics? of chemistry? Of electricity and galvanism? of heat? of light and colours? of the theory of the tides? of the fluxionary calculus? and of fifty other things, of a like kind, that might be named? Only show me a divine revelation on any one of these subjects — a finished and popular revelation, of all that the great Author of nature ever intends to make known in regard to that subject and I stand prepared to carry out my principle, and to say, that on that subject you are not to expect to make great discoveries and improvements. No, my young brethren, there is no resemblance whatever between theology and natural philosophy, that warrants the running of a parallel between them in the matter of improvement and discovery, by mere human intellect and effort-none whatever-and I must think it is a very stupid thing to institute any such analogy, as that which I have shown to be so palpably absurd.
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 13:28:40 -0600
From: “Rich Lusk”
Subject: Ashbel Green from the Princeton Review
Interesting.
Charles Hodge liked to brag about how nothiong new had ever been taught at Princeton as well. (I guess he figured common sense realism wasn’t new . . .) There’s a kind of hyper-conservativism among many Presbyteirans. But just like poltical conservatives, because they are not vigilant in working towards God’s future and striving towards ever greater maturity (Eph. 4:11ff), they just slide unknowingly towards the same end as liberals. It just happens more slowly. If anything should be obvious from the history of Christian theology, it’s that things can’t just sit still. We’ll always be moving; the only question is where. But we cannot live in the past, no matter how hard we try. The “reformation” is an ongoing project, not a finished product and it will carry on with or without us.
This kind of doctrinal conservativism is, in my view, sinful not only because it is idolatrous (as any irreformable tradition must be), but also because it is so highly sectarian. It implicitly creates an attitude of suspicion about other Christians who aren’t part of the “in-group.” You end up defining yourself in terms of yourself — in terms of your own tradition — and nothing beyond. Any discussion or dialogue with other branches of the church is regarded as dangerous because we might be swayed from the “truth” as our fathers professed it. A lot of this is just sentimentalism as well.
I think the problem for a lot of folks is how do you relate doctrinal development to confessional integrity. It seems “doctrinal development” causes a crisis of conscience for some guys. A major issue here is how the confession of faith is supposed to function. In other words, how can we subscribe to the confession while still admitting that it is not the “final word”? This cannot just be a matter of taking “exceptions” to the “system.” And then we also have to ask who gets to decide what doctrinal developments are tolerable/intolerable/mandatory/etc.? Is it the denominational aristocracy? Is it done on a presbytery by presbytery basis (talk about tearing apart a denomination at the seams!)? Furthermore, in what forum is discussion over doctrinal development supposed to take place? Obviously a lot of men think pastor’s conferences are not the place . . . but that still doesn’t answer the question. How would a confessional denomination ever go about replacing its own confession? Has such a thing happened? Is it possible?
The good thing about framing the issue in terms of doctrinal development is that it focuses the discussion squarely on the Bible, which is really the “high ground” for us. I think we win that argument every time. We can just say, “Yeah, we’re not southern — or even American — presbyterians, as much as we like that tradition. We’re not even 16th century presbyterians, as wonderful as that era was. We’re a new kind of presbyterian.” And then we can go from there.
But I can also see how such a strategy would be extremely risky in the PCA. (On the other hand, think how much energy several of us have poured into proving that our views are in line with the confession and the tradition over the past several years — all with very little net result in terms of persuding anyone who was hostile to start with.)
RL
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 20:02:36 -0000
From: “garver”
Subject: Re: Ashbel Green from the Princeton Review
Rich Lusk wrote:
> (On the other hand, think how much energy several of us have poured
> into proving that our views are in line with the confession and the
> tradition over the past several years — all with very little net
> result in terms of persuding anyone who was hostile to start with.)
Well, given the emails I get from what seems to be a wider and wider circle of folks, we might not be persuading the hostile fringe, but the open-minded center seems favorably impressed.
Even some of the relatively hostile fringes (e.g., Rick Phillips), despite continued resistance, have themselves changed and moved in our general direction.
So, you biblical guys keep up the front line stuff and others will shore up the rear with the history stuff.
joel
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 15:13:42 -0500
From: “Owen, Paul”
Subject: Ashbel Green from the Princeton Review
Rich,
I’m not sure I’m entirely with you here. Of course, I may not be understanding you. What it sounds like you may be saying is that the Reformers left the business of reforming the church unfinished, and it is up to us to pick up where they left off. I don’t think I would agree with that.
I think you would agree that the purpose of the mainstream Reformation (as opposed to the Radical Reformation) was not to get back to NT Christianity in its pristine purity. In other words, they weren’t striving for some high goal which we will never actually arrive at until the eschaton (Eph. 4:13). They were simply trying to purge the Church of a finite number of moral and doctrinal illnesses and abuses which had developed over the centuries. I see no reason not to believe that these problems were largely dealt with (on a limited scale) through the establishment of the Protestant Churches. Of course, their vision to see the problems fixed on a wide scale, embracing the whole church, did not materialize. The Church of Rome, while instituting some reforms, never embraced the Reformers’ vision. If there is anything left undone, I would say it would be with respect to continuing to encourage Reformation within the Church as a whole (including Latin and Greek branches).
I would also say that “evangelicalism” is in a dismal state, and needs to discover the insights of the Reformation. But I don’t see any evidence that we need to in any sense “move beyond” the doctrinal consensus of Reformational Christianity. (Again, you probably are not saying that, but it sometimes sounds that way.) The Synod of Dort has given us the closest thing to a statement of ecumenical Reformed orthodoxy that we could ask for, and other confessions and catechisms (Westminster, Belgic, Heidelberg) can delineate more specific denominational boundaries.
I guess what I’m saying, bottom line, is that it seems to me that we hit a benchmark, a high water point, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and I see no evidence that the church should seek to press beyond it. The problem with modern Presbyterianism is not that it is tied down or hampered by the Westminster Confession, it is that many within the American Reformed denominations do not actually fit very well within the theological landscape of the Reformation as it existed in times past. Whereas you seem to want to point to the future, I think we need to look harder at the past.
Again, I am generalizing based on your post, and I may well be missing the nuances of what you are trying to say. BTW, I have GREATLY benefited from your many writings, and consider myself heavily in your debt in helping me to see the breadth of the Reformed tradition. Thank you for that.
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 15:05:38 -0600
From: “Rich Lusk”
Subject: Ashbel Green from the Princeton Review
Well, given the emails I get from what seems to be a wider and wider circle of folks, we might not be persuading the hostile fringe, but the open-minded center seems favorably impressed.
Even some of the relatively hostile fringes (e.g., Rick Phillips),
despite continued resistance, have themselves changed and moved in our
general direction.
So, you biblical guys keep up the front line stuff and others will
shore up the rear with the history stuff.
joel
---------------
Understand, Joel, that my post was not an attempt to tell anyone what to do or what strategy to implement. It was just some random thoughts, probably more or less generated by Jim’s BH post the the other day and the MVP report. I am glad to hear about softening resistance, especially on the part of Rick. Hope it continues.
RL
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 15:35:09 -0600
From: “Rich Lusk”
Subject: Ashbel Green from the Princeton Review
Thanks for the kind words Paul. I’ll have to be brief, but perhaps others will want to chime in and supplement or correct what I say here.
I do agree with you that the 16th century represents a high water mark for theological development. And I don’t think that the Reformers were simply trying to recreate “NT Christianity” — they were not just oriented to the past but also to the future.
However, I do not think (as you seem to imply) that the Reformation is the apex of doctrinal devlopment that God has in store for his people in history. In other words it is just “a” high water mark, not “THE” high water mark. The river is not finished rising.
As a postmil guy, I can foresee history possibly going on for 1000s of years into the future, with many “reformations” still to come. But even aside from that kind of eschatological perspective, I think the 16th century (as wonderful as it was) does not represent the termination point in doctrinal maturation for the church. I think Eph. 4:11ff is very relevant here.
Thus, I think our task is not repristinating the views of 16th century theologians. Nor is it simply trying to get every other branch in Christendom to see the beauty and goodness of the Westminster Confession (something that I think has zero chance of happening anyway, especially given how culture-bound that document is). I think the Reformed branch of Christendom, while outpacing most others in more ways than not, can still stand to learn from other traditions within the Christendom family. So it won’t simply be a matter of making them like us; it will be a matter of a new “synthesis,” something heretofore unforeseen, in the same way the 16th century Reformation could not have been anticipated by all that went before (and the allusion here to Phillip Schaff’s view of the structure of church history is intentional, even if I have to disagree with a lot of Schaff’s later work). Franly, I think the Reformers would accuse us of betraying their spirit and violating sola Scripture if we refued to be future oriented, and remained satisfied with what they accomplished.
So, yes, I think the Reformers left a lot of unfinished business (paedcommunion, biblical-theological/typological hermeneutics, ritual theology, church architecture, music, eschatology, etc., not to mention areas where there were was no Reformational consensus (e.g., Sabbath/Lord’s day issues). Plus all kinds of new issues have cropped up that were simply not on the table in the 16th or 17th centuries (e.g., the role of women in the church; medical ethics; etc.). The 16th century alone does not provide the resources we need to deal with all that modern life and culture throws at us. The Reformed confessions do not deal with all the dilemmas we face. (This is why Tim Keller was exactly right when he pointed out at PCA GA a few years back that solving the “confessional subscription” issue would not solve the denomination’s deepest problems because those problems aren’t even addressed by the confession!)
That’s why I call the “reformation” a “project” that still isn’t finished. Every generation has its role to play. And in that sense, I think we certainly have to “move beyond” the earlier Reformation, Lord willing, into a “new reformation.”
Of course, I agree with you that the insights of the Reformation need to be appreciated more by Evangelicals, as well as by Greek and Latin Christians. But I think Eph. 4:11ff demands that we also have an openness to new light that God can shed forth from his Word, even if it breaks open the wine skins of the Westminster Confession. (Just consider the work of Jim Jordan, Peter Leithart, and N. T. Wright.)
Note that in my Theologia paper on baptism and the Reformed tradition (the first paper I ever made public on the topic, written back in 2001), I included in the subtitle a reference to the “future” of Reformed theology. I really meant that — as I hopefully demonstrate in the article itself in the section on “The Way Forward.” We cannot simply rest on our laurels. While we need to always be studying our past and immersing ourselves in the best our tradition has to offer, we cannot assume that alone will be sufficient for the tasks God calls the church to perform in the future. It doesn’t make sense to say God gave all his light to one strand of the church in the mid 16th century.
For more of my thoughts on doctrinal development in relation to “Reformed catholicity” you can look at my paper in Ref and Rev Journal, in the Winter 2004 issue.
Hope that is helpful. Again, others should probably comment on this as well. There’s much more to say.
Blessings,
RL
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 18:06:26 -0500
From: “Owen, Paul”
Subject: Ashbel Green from the Princeton Review
Good points Rich. I would certainly agree that in areas where the Westminster Standards and similar documents are silent, there is plenty of room for doctrinal development. Women’s issues, eschatology, theology of the environment, bioethics, and the list could go on. I don’t think I would disagree with you to that extent. Again, very stimulating thoughts!
— Paul
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 16:15:32 -0700
From: “Tim Gallant”
Subject: Ashbel Green from the Princeton Review
----- Original Message -----
From: Owen, Paul
To: bibhorizon@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 4:06 PM
Subject: RE: [bibhorizon] Ashbel Green from the Princeton Review
Good points Rich. I would certainly agree that in areas where the
Westminster Standards and similar documents are silent, there is plenty
of room for doctrinal development.
---------
Why only where Westminster is silent?
What about areas where the Westminster Standards are not wrong, but things could be more fully developed or better put? (I think of the matter of the covenant of works — what Westminster says is true enough, but it is very one-sided regarding the biblical material regarding God’s relationship to Adam.)
And why should we treat Westminster as an irreformable authority? But if it is reformable, that means in principle that it could be wrong on some points. (I think of the issue of paedocommunion, for one, as Rich brought up.)
tim
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 18:27:50 -0500
From: “Owen, Paul”
Subject: RE: Ashbel Green from the Princeton Review
Hi Tim. Well, I’m very pragmatic. I don’t think that we need Reformations every hundred years or so. The Church went for 1,500 years before the Protestant Reformation burst forth, and though Luther seemed a lone voice at times, he was actually giving rise to criticisms of the Church which had been bubbling under the surface for quite some time. It wasn’t really just Luther vs. the Catholic Church. So I guess where I’m heading with this is that I think it is a lot more likely that I as an individual am going to get a theological issue wrong, than that the collected wisdom of the Westminster Divines is going to be wrong.
I’m very skeptical of taking exceptions to the Westminster Standards, even minor ones, unless you can show me other Reformation-era voices expressing the same view. Views on the nature of the covenant of works were not monolithic in 17th century Reformed thought from what I can tell, so there should be breathing room there. Likewise, with paedo-communion (though I don’t hold to it), you at least have Musculus. So I would give that a pass. These are entirely different in nature then, from advocating modern theological views which did not find a significant voice in the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries.
See where I’m coming from?
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 16:41:36 -0700
From: “Tim Gallant”
Subject: Ashbel Green from the Princeton Review
----- Original Message -----
From: Owen, Paul
To: bibhorizon@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 4:27 PM
Subject: RE: [bibhorizon] Ashbel Green from the Princeton Review
Hi Tim. Well, I’m very pragmatic. I don’t think that we need
Reformations every hundred years or so. The Church went for 1,500 years
before the Protestant Reformation burst forth, and though Luther seemed
a lone voice at times, he was actually giving rise to criticisms of the
Church which had been bubbling under the surface for quite some time.
It wasn’t really just Luther vs. the Catholic Church. So I guess where
I’m heading with this is that I think it is a lot more likely that I as
an individual am going to get a theological issue wrong, than that the
collected wisdom of the Westminster Divines is going to be wrong.
I’m very skeptical of taking exceptions to the Westminster Standards,
even minor ones, unless you can show me other Reformation-era voices
expressing the same view. Views on the nature of the covenant of works
were not monolithic in 17th century Reformed thought from what I can
tell, so there should be breathing room there. Likewise, with
paedo-communion (though I don’t hold to it), you at least have Musculus.
So I would give that a pass. These are entirely different in nature
then, from advocating modern theological views which did not find a
significant voice in the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries.
-------------
Well, I definitely hold to the authority of the historical Church. And the more unanimous something has been in Protestant tradition, the more I hesitate on the point.
Nonetheless... it seems to me that your characterization of Luther is somewhat open to objection. It is not the case, after all, that all he did was blow away junk. He engaged in doctrinal development, plain and simple.
Moreover, simply because we may not need reformations as large-scale as the 16th century one, that is no argument whatsoever against doctrinal development. Doctrinal development will involve incorporating Scripture better, and it need not directly contradict what has been handed down to us — but that is far from saying that it will not be a marked improvement.
I return again to this Adamic covenant thing. It is true, as you say, that there is “room” there. But if I were to go thru all the major Reformers of the 16th-17th centuries, it seems to me that they all had a particular view of God’s relationship to Adam that I find problematic. Not because they take note of the commandments God laid on Adam, and not because they notice parallels between Adam and Israel’s reception of the Mosaic covenant — but because they *don’t* notice other things which, if taken into account, would make a huge difference in one’s view of what the Adamic administration was all about.
[To get an idea of what I’m talking about, see here:
http://www.covenantrenewal.com/covworks.htm ]
So then: as far as I can see, the early Reformed had a spectrum of views on the Adamic covenant — and yet this spectrum all fell within a more or less defined framework, even when they didn’t explicitly use covenantal language. And yet, in my mind, that framework is flawed and must be moved beyond, because only half of the biblical evidence was incorporated into it.
That’s just an example. And the truth is that I am very far from being eager to embrace theological fads. But the answer to fads is not simply to act as if the thinking has all been pretty much done for us already, I don’t think.
tim
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 19:20:24 -0500
From: “Owen, Paul”
Subject: Ashbel Green from the Princeton Review
Good points Tim. But there is a difference between saying that a formulation states only part of the truth, and saying that the truth that it does allege to state is not true after all. The former I could affirm, but not the latter. I’ll have to take a look at your essay. Thanks for pointing me to it.
