Just What is Involved in Protestants Going Back to Basics? Reflections Spurred by Carl Trueman’s Recent Appeal
Which councils are we to accept, and which are we to reject? Evangelicals have a coherent, practical answer: we are to “test everything” in light of Scripture and “hold fast what is good” and abhor “what is evil,” including all falsehood (1 Thess. 5:21; Rom. 12:9; Eph. 4:25). Those who wish to embrace the Great Tradition are going to be sorely tried at this point, for there will be a tension between tradition and Scripture which will be resolvable only by choosing between the two.
Writing in light of his recent delivery of the inaugural lecture for the Center for Classical Theology (CCT), Carl Trueman has issued an appeal for modern Protestants, especially evangelicals, to “go back to basics” by recovering “classical theology,” which he defines as “orthodox Christian doctrines as set forth by the creeds, the Great Tradition of theology exemplified by the ancient ecumenical councils, and traditional Protestant confessions such as the Westminster Confession.” That definition will not suffice. One, the Great Tradition, so named, does not merely include creeds, confessions, and councils. It also includes the teaching of ancient and medieval teachers, hence the CCT’s popular outlet, Credo, has published issues titled “What Can Protestants Learn From Thomas Aquinas?” and “The Great Tradition: Patristic Edition.” This Great Tradition also includes Platonism, hence Credo also says “the Great Tradition believed Platonism’s metaphysical commitments could serve Christianity,” and explicitly links both to early church teachers (the next sentence says “consider Augustine, for example, whose conversion to Christianity may have been an impossibility apart from Platonism”).
Again, this is not my conception, but that of the Great Tradition’s proponents themselves, and as such the abbreviated definition Trueman gives fails to apprise the reader of what all is entailed in “classical theology” and the Great Tradition. (Brief aside: those quotation marks around classical theology are not snide, but are original to Trueman, for whom I have a warm respect.) And as I have written elsewhere, there are grounds for concern about some of the teachers of this Great Tradition. For example, Aquinas was an idolater, and Scripture’s instructions on that point are plain (“I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is . . . an idolater,” 1 Cor. 5:11).
The second problem with Trueman’s definition here is that bit about councils. Which councils are we to accept, and which are we to reject? Evangelicals have a coherent, practical answer: we are to “test everything” in light of Scripture and “hold fast what is good” and abhor “what is evil,” including all falsehood (1 Thess. 5:21; Rom. 12:9; Eph. 4:25). Those who wish to embrace the Great Tradition are going to be sorely tried at this point, for there will be a tension between tradition and Scripture which will be resolvable only by choosing between the two. For example, the seventh ecumenical council, Nicea II, anathematized people who reject worshiping images (i.e., idolatry), and so Scripture (Ex. 20:4-5; Lev. 26:1; Deut. 5:8-9; 27:15; Acts 17:29) leads us to reject it as erroneous and unauthoritative. Such cases prompt us to assert that all of us ought to be able to sincerely say, with Luther, that we are we bound to the Word of God alone, since councils “have often erred and contradicted each other.”
In addition, Trueman’s conception is a strange one. He speaks of going back to basics when it seems that in many cases this idiom does not suffice at all. There are many evangelicals who have a notion of initial conversion but who do not have much doctrine beyond that: their whole effort in ministry is bringing people to faith and repentance, but they do not have a robust body of doctrine to teach the disciples they make by their evangelistic activities. In such cases it is not going back to the basics but rather moving beyond them that is needed; such people are in the milk stage and need to move along to solids (1 Cor. 3:2; Heb. 5:11-14). Given his passing mention of contemporary evangelical doctrine owing much to revivalism and his keen historical and doctrinal acumen, I suspect Trueman would agree on this point.
Others do indeed need to go back to basics, but not in the way that Trueman suggests. There are those who are ensnared in pedantry who need to return to the basics of the faith as including practice and not being merely a matter of knowledge in the head (Eph. 2:10; 1 Tim. 6:18-19; Tit. 2:14; 3:8; Jas. 2; 2 Pet. 1:5-10; 1 Jn. 3:17). In addition, we might forgive any evangelical who felt a certain perturbance at Trueman’s suggestion here. Well might one rejoin:
Go back to the basics? What is the Reformation if not a large and enduring plea for people to go back to the basics of the faith as revealed in Scripture and practiced and believed by the primitive church? For over half a millennium now we have been calling people to lay aside the corruptions of human tradition, needlessly convoluted, impossible to perform, and antithetical to the truth as they are, and to return to basic doctrine and practice. We have been calling people to the basics of authority (Scripture alone instead of what a corrupt and fabulously wealthy institutional church says Scripture and tradition teach); of how to be saved (grace alone through faith alone, not submission to priestcraft and participation in manmade practices that contradict Scripture and leave one with no assured hope); of the only means of maintaining a right relation to God (through the merit and intercession of Christ alone, not via the intercession or merits of the earthly church, dead saints in glory, angels, or Mary); of the purpose of human life (to give glory only to the jealous God who will share his glory with no other, not to build an ostentatious earthly institution that revels in its own power); of the dignity of all lawful earthly vocations, the priesthood of all believers, church polity conducted along scriptural lines, of a right understanding of the means of grace and how to act in the world (all against Rome’s dizzying hierarchy and multitude of offices, its elevation of a ‘religious’ life above common earthly labors, its distorted notions of the number and nature of the sacraments, and its commendation of asceticism and monastic lifestyles). Our whole aim and modus operandi is to call people out of burdensome, false, soul-crushing human accretions and back to the basics of the faith God has given us in his word.
This last point touches something which is concerning in Trueman’s article. In his commendation of classical theology he asks:
Why do Protestants, especially those of an evangelical stripe, typically prioritize the doctrine of salvation over the doctrine of God? If an evangelical rejects simplicity or impassibility or eternal generation, he is typically free to do so. But why should those properly committed to the creeds and confessions consider that person closer spiritually to them than those who affirm classical theism but share a different understanding of justification?
The answer to the first question is that if you botch salvation a pristine doctrine of theology proper will not avail you – for “even the demons believe” (Jas. 2:19). To know God in truth we must first believe and enter into eternal life (Jn. 17:3; 1 Jn. 5:20); a theoretical knowledge about him does not require this. As for the second, Trueman subsequently elaborates:
At an Association of Theological Schools accreditation meeting I once found myself placed among the “evangelical” attendees. In that group was someone who denied simplicity, impassibility, and the fact that God knows the future—all doctrines that I affirm. Those are not minor differences. Wistfully my eyes wandered to the Dominicans at another table, all of whom would at least have agreed with me on who God is, even if not on how he saves his church. We would at least have shared some common ground upon which to set forth our significant differences. The Reformed Orthodox of the Westminster Assembly would have considered deviance on the doctrine of God to be anathema and, if forced to choose, would certainly have preferred the company of a Thomist to that of someone who denied simplicity, eternal generation, or God’s foreknowledge. Why do we not think the same? The modern Protestant imagination is oddly different from that of our ancestors.
One might opine that such an episode says more about the classification tendencies of accreditation agencies than of the relative propriety of associating with either Dominicans or so-called ‘evangelicals’ that deny essential divine attributes. And one might further opine that such a tendency to be sloppy in their classifications – and for that matter, to accredit such divergent bodies as Westminster Theological Seminary (Trueman’s former institution), Dominican institutions, and schools that employ open theists – calls into question the usefulness and desirability of having the approval of such an agency, but I digress. Much of the difficulty here arises from the term ‘evangelical’ being used too loosely, and even being applied to people whom we consider heretics and whose teaching we avoid, such as the man in Trueman’s example who denies God’s foreknowledge.
I am not sure, however, that it would be just or prudent to regard as heretical people who do not understand or reject something like impassibility. That would be tantamount to condemning pretty much all professing believers to perdition over a doctrine which is neither easily understood nor obvious from a simple reading of Scripture. Growth in understanding being a process, it seems we should gently and patiently commend sound doctrine on this point and not be so frustrated by current affairs regarding it that we wistfully yearn for others to associate us with Dominicans.
That last point is particularly concerning. The Dominicans are a Romanist order, with all the associated false doctrine and practices. For a Protestant to wistfully want to be associated with them is to forget just how badly Rome distorts the truth and subjects people to tyranny, and of how “bad company ruins good morals (1 Cor. 15:33). For him to do so in the midst of an article calling for a return to “traditional Protestant confessions such as the Westminster” is especially curious, since that confession says participation in oathbound orders like the Dominicans is “superstitious and sinful” (WCF 22.7).
As for the “Reformed Orthodox of the Westminster Assembly . . . preferr[ing] the company of a Thomist to that of someone who denied simplicity, eternal generation, or God’s foreknowledge,” that seems like begging the question, depending upon what is meant by a Thomist. The Reformed Orthodox were keen on rejecting the errors of all who stumbled from the truth, regardless of what way or direction in which they fell. In WCF 1.6, for example, they say of Scripture that “nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men,” the latter being aimed against Rome and the former against the radical sects that believed in continuing revelation.[1]
So also with WCF 1.7’s statement asserting Scripture’s perspicuity, which says that “not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them,” which is directed against both Rome and the sects that emphasized the “inner light,” as well as WCF 1.8’s assertion that Scripture had been transmitted and preserved faithfully.[2] And recall that the open practice of Romanism was forbidden by law at the time in which the Westminster Assembly was meeting, and that the radical sects such as the Quakers often fell afoul of the law as well in those days. This leads me to suspect that the difference between us and our forebears on this point is not that we keep company with one rather than the other, but that we keep company with one where they would not have kept company with either. Trueman’s broad point about many evangelicals needing to further clarify (or purify) their theology proper is indeed sound, but well might we fear that the movement urging them to do so sometimes leans a bit too far in the other direction, keeps the wrong company, or presents itself, as here, in a garb that is not wholly accurate to the case at hand.
Tom Hervey is a member of Woodruff Road Presbyterian Church, Five Forks (Simpsonville), SC. The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not of necessity reflect those of his church or its leadership or other members. He welcomes comments at the email address provided with his name. He is also author of Reflections on the Word: Essays in Protestant Scriptural Contemplation.
[1] The Westminster Assembly and Its Work, B.B. Warfield, p.199
[2] Ibid., pp. 209, 212
-
Encouragement for Battling Spiritual Depression
Written by Derek J. Brown |
Saturday, April 20, 2024
Those of us who tend toward introspection will, in most cases, also tend toward pulling away from people. Conversely, a proactive love toward others—family members, friends, neighbors, and enemies—is a powerful weapon against an unhealthy preoccupation with our inner life. Love is considered the distinguishing mark of the Christian.The following is a response to an email I received a while ago. A dear brother contacted me and asked me if I could expand on an entry I had posted. Specifically, he wanted to know if and how the Lord had helped me make progress in dealing with unhealthy introspective tendencies and spiritual depression. Below is the letter with a few slight edits for clarity.
Dear Friend,
Thank you again for your email. An inclination toward severe introspection and spiritual depression is something that has affected me since early in my Christian life, and I still find myself battling introspective tendencies and spiritual depression.
When I first came to Christ, I noticed immediately that I tended toward a severe examination of my inner life—my motives, my affections for God and for others, my faith in Christ, my holiness. Far from bringing me peace and assurance in my relationship with Christ, this propensity to question every inner-working of my heart instead brought much doubt, confusion and, inevitably, depression.
Yet, I can say that, by God’s grace, I have made significant progress in this area. As I reflect on the past several years, I can see specific means of grace that God has used to help me turn from an unhealthy preoccupation with self and sin—with the depression that inevitably follows—to a growing focus on the gospel and others. The following are several disciplines I have found to be particularly helpful in my fight against what Martin Lloyd Jones calls “morbid introspection” and the resultant spiritual depression.
A few words, first, about the following points. First, it is important to remember that overcoming introspective tendencies does not mean that we are to disregard all forms of self-examination. Sober-minded, thoughtful, doctrinally informed self-examination is required for believers (2 Cor. 13:5), and is, when conducted correctly, a means of real joy and peace.
Second, the following list includes those things I have found to be beneficial to me. It is a personal list. I hope and trust that much of what I offer here is grounded in Scripture. Nevertheless, it will be important for you to not receive this as an infallible map to spiritual health but rather as helpful suggestions as you continue to walk daily with the Lord, learning from his Word and from other counselors.
The first point (a robust understanding of the gospel), however, lays the foundation for everything else. Without this important point, our battle against morbid introspection and depression will malfunction at a fundamental level. With those two cautions in mind, let’s turn to considering the following points.
1. We need a robust understanding of the gospel.
I put this first because it is the most important. I have found that my tendency toward severe introspection is compounded to the degree that I am not seeing the gospel in all its beauty and doctrinal fullness. Specifically, this has meant understanding and embracing the important doctrines of justification, sanctification, and indwelling sin.
Justification: Scripture teaches that justification is the act of God by which he declares us wholly forgiven and righteous in his sight and on the basis of Christ’s perfect life and substitutionary death on the cross (Rom. 3:21-26; 5:1; 8:1), not upon any work that we have done or will do (Rom. 4:5; II Tim. 1:9; Tit. 3:4-7). This declaration is based solely on the work of Christ and his righteousness which God credits to our account; it is not based upon the righteousness the Holy Spirit works inside of us once he regenerates our hearts.
Nor is faith our righteousness; faith is only the instrument by which we receive the gift of righteousness—a righteousness wrought by Jesus Christ and him alone. This declaration of justification by God occurs at the moment the sinner puts genuine faith in Christ (Rom. 4:5; 5:1) and cannot be undone (Rom. 8:33-39), since it is a work God planned from all eternity (Rom. 8:29-30).
Sanctification: Sanctification is the gradual work of the Holy Spirit in our lives by which he cleanses our hearts from sin, purifies our affections and desires, and makes us more like Jesus Christ. This aspect of our sanctification is often referred to as progressive sanctification. There are several important truths about sanctification that I have found to be particularly helpful in my battle with unhealthy introspection.
First, whether one currently feels like it or not, when they placed saving faith in Jesus Christ, they died to the dominion of sin in their hearts and lives (Rom. 6:6-11). This is called definitive sanctification. Scripture does not say that we have to die continually to the dominion of sin in our lives; it says we already died to sin’s dominion when we trusted in Christ: sin no longer has dominion over us and it never will. This does not mean that genuine Christians will not sin! True saints can and do sin; sometimes even grievously. But what it does mean is that true Christians are not held sway by sin the same way they once were.
Second, our right standing with God is not based on our level of progressive sanctification; our right standing with God is based only on Christ’s life and work on the cross. This is an important distinction to make. Romans 4:5 tells us that God justifies the ungodly. This means that we are in right standing with God on the basis of Christ’s work on our behalf and our union with him by faith, and not on the progress we have made in sanctification. If we are confused here, we can never have any real confidence in our standing with God.
If we think our right standing with God is based in any way upon the progress we have made in personal holiness, we will despair when we commit sin or when our affections are not where they should be. Justification and sanctification cannot be separated—when justification occurs, sanctification inevitably follows—but they must be kept distinct in our overall understanding of salvation.
Indwelling Sin: Understanding what Scripture teaches about indwelling sin is particularly important for those of us who tend toward intense scrutiny of our hearts. If we think sin has been utterly eradicated at our conversion, the only logical conclusion we can draw when we find sin in our lives is that we have not been converted, a conclusion which typically leads to more despair and depression. On the other hand, if we recognize that sin, although it no longer holds dominion over us, is still powerfully active and pervasive in our hearts and that our responsibility is to kill this indwelling sin by the power of the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:13), then we will not despair when we find sin in our lives—we will do battle against it.
One of the most helpful discoveries I have made is the truth that the sinful flesh, though not dominating me as it once did, is still alive and active (sometimes powerfully so!) and must be mortified.
Read More
Related Posts: -
Use the Gifts You Were Given
You may think your work is very ordinary or unimportant, but if it is being done for God, it IS important. And that is why it needs the help of the Holy Spirit to be done right. Whether it is building chairs, cooking foods at a rescue mission, or writing articles for a website, in all these areas – and more – we need the Lord and his empowering. Yes, you might have long felt gifted as a cook or a woodworker or a writer, but if we are doing these things for Christ and the Kingdom, we need his Spirit to guide us and use us as we make use of those giftings and talents. Without him we are nothing great – but with him we can do great things.
We all have gifts and abilities which have been given to us by God. And God expects us to use them for his glory. It may not always be clear what your particular gifting or talent is, but God does have a job for each of us to do, and he equips us for that task. I recently wrote about what my giftings might be. As I said in that piece:
Often the abilities and talents that you had as a non-Christian are what God will have you make use of in Christian service. Before I became a believer I read a lot and I wrote a lot. Of course I was reading a lot of stuff I now no longer embrace, and I wrote things (such as articles for underground newspapers) that I now no longer agree with.
But where did that talent or ability come from? I believe God gave it to me, and for a while I used it for pagan purposes, but upon becoming a Christian God took those same talents and baptised them into his service. So something I always liked and was good at God used for his work. https://billmuehlenberg.com/2023/01/08/on-reading-and-writing-its-what-i-do/
I also mentioned in that piece that sometimes God may call you to give up a talent or ability:
I think here of the committed Scottish Christian Eric Liddell whose story was made famous in the 1981 film Chariots of Fire. He was born in China to missionary parents, but studied in the UK. He became a terrific runner and even competed in the 1924 Paris Olympics. But he gave this up, returning to China in 1925 as a missionary, where he died 20 years later. He said he ran for the glory of God.
What might be a general rule of thumb is this: Usually we are to use the abilities and talents that we have, knowing that they come from God, although we always need to be willing to give them up if we are asked to do so. What ultimately matters is not any great talents or gifts that we have, but our obedience.
I say all this because as I keep reading through the book of Exodus I was again struck with this notion of God gifting his people to perform his tasks. Exodus is known for several things, most noteworthy being the actual exodus of God’s people out of Egypt. The first third of the book discusses that (chapters 1-18). The next six chapters (19-24) are about Sinai and the giving of the law. The last chapters (25-40) are about the tabernacle and its construction.
Sixteen entire chapters are devoted to this final topic, and great detail is provided there. One thing that stood out to me as I again read this account is that of two individuals who are specially named concerning this task. I refer to Bezalel and Oholiab. They are referred to a number of times in Ex. 31-38, and a few times in Chronicles.
We might call them master craftsmen. That they are specifically highlighted in these chapters tells us of their importance in the making of the tabernacle. Consider these two passages:
Exodus 31:1-11 The Lord said to Moses, “See, I have called by name Bezalel the son of Uri, son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah, and I have filled him with the Spirit of God, with ability and intelligence, with knowledge and all craftsmanship, to devise artistic designs, to work in gold, silver, and bronze, in cutting stones for setting, and in carving wood, to work in every craft. And behold, I have appointed with him Oholiab, the son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan. And I have given to all able men ability, that they may make all that I have commanded you: the tent of meeting, and the ark of the testimony, and the mercy seat that is on it, and all the furnishings of the tent, the table and its utensils, and the pure lampstand with all its utensils, and the altar of incense, and the altar of burnt offering with all its utensils, and the basin and its stand, and the finely worked garments, the holy garments for Aaron the priest and the garments of his sons, for their service as priests, and the anointing oil and the fragrant incense for the Holy Place. According to all that I have commanded you, they shall do.”
Read More
Related Posts: -
What Does “The Prayer of a Righteous Man is Powerful and Effective” Mean?
Effective prayer has greater results than we can imagine. God is “able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think” (Ephesians 3:20). Do you pray as if this were true? No, as I’ve mentioned God isn’t always going to answer us in the way or timing we want. But when we pray in faith, everything is possible, not because we are so wise or powerful, but because our sovereign God is.
The book of James says, “The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working” (5:16b ESV). Other translations say, “the prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective” (NIV) or “The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much” (KJV). This verse motivates us to cry out to God because He uses our prayers to change the world.
But what exactly does this phrase from James mean? Does it mean that we will receive everything we pray for, or that holiness strengthens our prayers? Before answering these questions and pointing out the characteristics of effective prayer, let’s look at the verse in its context.
The Context
The book of James ends with a call to prayer:
Is anyone among you suffering? Let him pray… Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him… And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. (James 5:13–16a)
In other words, if prayer can help a brother who is sick, battling sin, or suffering for any other reason, pray! God listens to the cries of His children. Then in verse 16b, James reiterates the power of prayer: “The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working.”
Characteristics of Effective Prayer
Elsewhere in Scripture we see characteristics of effective prayer:
1) Effective prayer is done in faith.
James mentions “the prayer of faith” twice, once in James 1:5-8 and again in James 5:15. Faith is necessary for effective prayer because, as Hebrews 11:6 says, “without faith it is impossible to please God.”
Some people try to manipulate God on this point, claiming that they will receive their requests because their requests were (supposedly) made in faith. But the prayer of faith is not about the results of our prayers. Rather, it has to do with the simple belief that God exists, listens to us, and that every outcome of prayer is in His sovereign and merciful hands.
2) Effective prayer has the right motives.
James mentions another obstacle to effective prayer: false motives. James 4:3 says, “You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions.” Impure motives can disqualify our prayers.
3) Effective prayer comes from the lips of “the righteous.”
James does not promise that everyone’s prayer can obtain everything asked for, he specifically mentions “the prayer of the righteous person” (emphasis mine). We must be careful at this point, because no one is perfect and God ultimately listens to us because of Christ’s righteousness, not ours. However, our holy living does matter in prayer, as James asserts.
Read More
Related Posts:
