1. Were the 16th-Century Reformers Fundamentalists?
No. This is a profound anachronism.
Fundamentalism is a specific, primarily 20th-century Protestant movement that arose as a militant reaction against theological liberalism and modernism. Its key characteristics include:
Separation: A strong emphasis on separating from both doctrinal error and cultural compromise.
Cultural Isolation: A tendency to create a distinct subculture separate from the "worldly" mainstream.
Inerrancy and Interpretation: A specific formulation of biblical inerrancy that often merges with a literalistic interpretive approach and a deep suspicion of historical-critical scholarship.
The 16th-Century Reformers (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc.) were not reacting against modernism; they were reforming a corrupt medieval Catholic system. Their battle was for the core truths of the gospel (justification by faith alone, Scripture alone, grace alone) within Christendom. They sought to reform the existing church, not to separate from it and create a new, pure subculture. Their engagement with philosophy, art, and learning (Renaissance humanism) was a key tool in their reformation, not something to be isolated from.
Conclusion: Labeling the Reformers as "fundamentalists" projects a 20th-century mindset onto 16th-century figures with vastly different contexts and goals.
2. Were the 16th-Century Reformers Separatists?
Generally, no. Their default position was reform, not separation.
Martin Luther never intended to leave the Catholic Church; he was excommunicated for his refusal to recant. His goal was to correct the Church's errors from within.
John Calvin worked primarily within the city-state of Geneva to establish a reformed church and society. While he was exiled for a time, he returned and worked within the civic structure.
The Magisterial Reformation: This is the key term. The mainstream Reformers believed the church should be allied with the "magistrate" (the civil government) to promote and protect the true religion for the good of society. This is the opposite of the separatist model, which believes the church should be independent of the state.
The Exception: The Anabaptists (e.g., Menno Simons) were the true separatists of the 16th century. They believed in a pure church separated from the state, practiced believer's baptism, and were heavily persecuted by both Catholics and the Magisterial Reformers like Luther and Calvin, who saw their separatism as a threat to social and religious order.
Conclusion: The core Reformers were not separatists. Separation was the position of their radical opponents (Anabaptists), whom they vehemently opposed.
3. Were They Proponents of Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP)?
No, this is a modern doctrinal formulation.
The doctrine of Verbal Plenary Preservation (the belief that God miraculously preserved every word of the original autographs in a specific line of manuscripts, typically the Textus Receptus for the NT) was not a defined doctrine in the 16th century.
The Reformers held to the divine inspiration and supreme authority of Scripture (a doctrine of inspiration).
They believed in God's providential preservation of His Word so that the church would never be without it.
However, they were textual realists. They recognized that manuscripts had variations. For example:
Erasmus, who compiled the Textus Receptus, used the best (but very few) Greek manuscripts he had available. He even translated a few verses from the Latin Vulgate back into Greek where he lacked a Greek source!
Martin Luther questioned the canonicity of James, Jude, Hebrews, and Revelation based on his theological reading, showing his view of the text was not mechanically rigid.
John Calvin showed awareness of textual variants in his commentaries and would at times discuss which reading he found more probable.
Their method was to use the best available scholarship and textual evidence to get as close as possible to the original autographs. They would have welcomed the discovery of older, more reliable manuscripts like the ones modern textual criticism uses (Codex Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, etc.). The dogmatic, almost mystical defense of the Textus Receptus as the only preserved text is a later development.
Conclusion: The Reformers were champions of biblical authority and preservation in a general sense, but they were not "VPP proponents" as defined by the modern fundamentalist movement.
4. Were They Reformed?
This is a nuanced question. The answer is: They were the source of Reformed theology, but they did not hold to its later, fully systematized form.
Yes, in essence: Figures like John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, and John Knox are the foundational fathers of the Reformed tradition. They established the core soteriological (doctrines of grace), ecclesiastical, and hermeneutical principles that would later be codified in confessions like the Westminster Standards (1646) and the Canons of Dort (1618).
No, in detail: The full, precise system known as "Reformed theology" or "Reformed orthodoxy" was developed by their successors in the 17th century (e.g., Francis Turretin, the Westminster Divines). These later theologians took the seeds planted by the Reformers and developed them into a highly detailed and systematic form.
For example, Calvin did not use the TULIP acronym (a later development from the Synod of Dort).
His views on the extent of the atonement are still debated by scholars.
The precise definitions of covenant theology were fleshed out after his time.
Think of it this way: The 16th-century Reformers built the engine and chassis of Reformed theology. The 17th-century scholastics built the complete car body and wrote the detailed owner's manual.
Overall Conclusion:
The book "Calvinism: The Old vs. The New" creates a false historical narrative. It takes a very specific, modern, and arguably fundamentalist interpretation of Reformed theology and projects it backward onto the 16th-century Reformers, claiming it is the only "Old" or true Calvinism.
In reality:
1. The Reformers were not fundamentalists.
2. They were not separatists (the Magisterial Reformation).
3. They did not hold to the modern doctrine of Verbal Plenary Preservation.
4. While they are the foundation of being Reformed, the system was fully developed after their time.
Therefore, the book's central thesis—that "New Calvinism" has departed from the "Old Calvinism" of the Reformers—is built on a flawed and abistorical definition of what "Old Calvinism" actually was. The New Calvinist movement, with its engagement of culture, use of modern scholarship, and broader ecumenism, can, in many ways, be argued to be closer to the Reformers' missional and transformative spirit than the isolated fundamentalism presented in the book as the "old" standard.
No comments:
Post a Comment