It's no secret that the Reformed Church in all of its stripes claims catholicity and claims to be a Reformation of the church catholic. I do not, however, think these claims are valid, for numerous doctrinal reasons.
First, let us say that there are three major ideas in play here. First is the idea of apostolic succession. The Church of Rome banks their entire existence on the succession of the Papacy from St. Peter all the way down to Pope Francis. Other churches base this concept on the laying on of hands traced from the Apostles. Second is the history of the church and the ecumenical councils. All churches that claim catholicity (mainly RCC, Orthodox, Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican) must by default have interest in the councils. Likewise, we have the similar topic of historical church practice and doctrine. Finally, we have the idea of apostolic doctrinal succession via the Scriptures.
I posit that the Reformed Church has none of these. They don't care for apostolic succession. Many churches don't, and nowhere does the Scripture say that the true church is the one who has the Pope or carries on via the laying on of hands, no matter how many other doctrinal errors they have. So, we won't hold that one against them.
The Reformed Church also is not catholic in the sense of church history and the ecumenical councils. Sure, St. Augustine held to a form of double predestination, but the council that the Reformed like the most (Council of Orange, 529) actually sharply rebukes and declares heretical the doctrine of double predestination. And it upholds in very strong wording the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, which is something the Reformed reject, mainly due to their stances on election, atonement, and perseverance. To put it bluntly, the church catholic throughout the years did not hold to limited atonement or perseverance of the saints. Likewise, that same church catholic throughout history has strongly affirmed baptismal regeneration as well as the real bodily presence of Christ in the Eucharist, which are two things the Reformed Church rejects. The church councils and history of doctrine and practice are definitely not in favor of the Reformed Church. In short, when pushed, the Reformed Church must in effect say that the church throughout the years simply did not have it right concerning these things.
Finally, we have the idea of doctrinal succession. This idea ties in directly with the second idea. Does the Reformed Church have correct doctrinal succession all the way back to the Apostles? The answer to this also is no. Historically, the church catholic did not teach the strong distinctives of Reformed Theology. In fact, the church catholic actually taught against some of these things. Nobody taught limited atonement, because it's not in the Scriptures. Everyone taught baptismal regeneration and the Real Presence, because they are in the Scriptures. Nobody taught irresistible grace only for the elect by a secret inward call, because that is not in the Scriptures.
The Reformed like to call us back to Scripture, and this is indeed an excellent thing. Yet, they are calling us back to a Calvinistic Systematic reading of the Scriptures, which end up being interpretations of numerous passages that nobody in church history posited for 1500 years. This is not an excellent thing.
Hence, the term "Reformed" Church is a misnomer. The Reformed did not Reform the church, they started something completely new and have interpretations on core theological issues that were new to the 16th century. Not to mention the offspring of the classical Reformed Church which includes the Arminians, Wesleyans, and all stripes of Baptists, all three of which are far from historical catholic Christianity. The catholicity is simply not there, save for one aberrant doctrine taught by St. Augustine. As much as the Reformed claim that they are the true Reformation of the church catholic, they simply are not. It's unfathomable to think that the church catholic was simply wrong on so many core doctrines for 1500+ years.
The Roman Catholic Church, on the other hand, errs on the other side of things. By declaring Herself infallible in matters of dogma in 1870, Rome has rendered Herself unreformable altogether and simply cannot call Herself back to the history, catholicity, and Scriptures of the church where She has erred grievously. To do so would be to render Her self-proclaimed infallibility an error in itself. This is not good either. The church catholic must always be brought back to the Word of God as Her infallible truth, being guided by the great Creeds, Confessions, and history of the church. There is hope the Reformed can still do this on core doctrinal topics, but for Rome, that ship has sailed.
There is much more to say about this topic, but from where I stand, these are some of the core issues. More reasons to be Lutheran.
+Pax+
No comments:
Post a Comment