Here I only want to discuss the what Barcellos calls the “biblicist” mentality, which he uses perjoratively and ascribes to the NCT theologians. Barcellos defines biblicist mentality this way:
[Biblicist mentality] demands that a doctrine must be spelled out explicitly in the text of scripture. (GtGR, p. 35.)This is a blatant mischaracterization. Such a hermeneutical strawman renders all biblicists as heretics, given that the doctrine of the Trinity is not spelled out explicitly in scripture. I believe I am on solid ground when I say that all NCT theologians affirm the Trinity. Therefore they cannot be biblicists from Barcellos's definition, even though he labels them as such.
At most you should claim a threshold definition: biblicist is the “mentality” that argues that more or less the level of extrapolation from scripture required to affirm the Trinity is about as far as it is safe to go. Doctrine that requires a greater extrapolation may be right, but it is certainly not cardinal.
Let us make a fairer distinction between the Reformed “biblicist” and, “confessionalist” [3] as it relates to the LBCF 1689.
(Baptist) Biblicist: The confession (LBCF 1689) is a marvelous document, and correct at, say, the 95% level.
(Baptist) Confessionalist: The confession (LBCF 1689) is 100% correct.
The biblicist, for example, is free to agree with
4. The Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the church, in whom, by the appointment of the Father, all power for the calling, institution, order or government of the church, is invested in a supreme and sovereign manner; neither can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God; whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming. (LBCF 26.4)and also free to disagree, recognizing the paragraph as an anachronism—i.e. in 1689 most of us would have jumped on board calling the Pope the antichrist. In 2020 there are too many choices (e.g., Joel Osteen) to warrant singling out the bishop of Rome. Also, note that it is impossible from scripture to demonstrate the Pope is the antichrist. (Try proving it with the LBCF 1689 proof texts.)
In spite of the absence of proof, the confessionalist must accept LBCF 26.4. They often do so by insulting the writing ability divines, and claiming that they actually meant, even though they didn’t say it, was that it is the office of the Pope that is the antichrist.
It is clear that if one desires to be a confessionalist, then one must cast aspersions on the biblicists. This is because many of the statements in the confession require a fair amount of exegetical gymnastics. If you don’t believe me, go read the confession with “proof texts” and tell me what percentage of the proof texts are satisfying. (Some, recognizing this, say that the proof texts are merely starting points, which kind of makes my point.)
Now the topic of Barcellos’s book leads to a truly bizarre argument. Let us compare the Presbyterian Westminster Confession of Faith and The LBCF 1689 on the subject of The Covenant of Works:
1. The distance between God and the creature is so great that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of him as their blessedness and reward but by some voluntary condescension on God’s part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant. 2. The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.. 3. Man by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace: wherein he freely offered unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him that they may be saved,b and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe. (WCF 7.1-3)
1. The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience to him as their creator, yet they could never have attained the reward of life but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant. 2. Moreover, man having brought himself under the curse of the law by his fall, it pleased the Lord to make a covenant of grace, wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved; and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe. (LBCF 7.1-2)
There is a big problem. Do you see it?
Barcellos wants to demonstrate that, like in Presbyterian Covenant Theology, Baptist Covenant Theology includes a Covenant of Works. (He is right of course.) However, he also wants to demonstrate that the LBCF 1689 teaches of such a doctrine, when in fact the Baptist divines explicitly removed the reference. It is an impossible task, and in later chapters he fails rather miserably.
And it is so unnecessary. Many biblicists also affirm a Covenant of Works with Adam. But for those who place excessive esteem on the LBCF, it is a necessary stretch. Barcellos, I suppose, does as well as anyone could at an impossible task.
[1] FWIW, I once identified as a New Covenant Theology adherent. I don't anymore, although I am sympathetic with some of their views on the missteps of Covenant Theology.
[2] Both camps agree, for example, that Adam was promised eternal life in the presence of God on the condition of obedience. The disagreement is in the noise and of little significance, except for the mountain from a molehill crowd (on both sides.)
[3] Some confessionalists will argue that the biblicists cannot be truly reformed, because, well, they are not confessionalists. Of course John Calvin, for example, never saw the LBCF or the WCF, so we do not really know whether he would have been a confessionalist, but that camp more or less assumes (with no evidence) that he would have been.
No comments:
Post a Comment