One sign that we’ve entered a strange new time is that a Princeton Seminary prof has written an essay in order to instruct WTS/P faculty about the meaning of the Definition of Chalcedon as understood by the Westminster Confession.
Bruce McCormack has weighed in to the WTS/P “Enns Controversy and he does so on the basis of the Westminster Confession of Faith.
What is ironic about this is that Princeton decided a long time ago, at least by 1929, that the Reformed confessions don’t define the Reformed faith. That’s one of the reasons why WTS (and later WSC) came into existence. Machen was a confessionalist and it became clear by ’29 that PTS was no longer going to be a confessional institution. It was going to be a broadly evangelical, latitudinarian, pluralist institution that would continue to include a few confessional folk (until they died or retired) but that it would be dominated by those who did not think that the WCF should be the operating norm for PTS or the Presbyterian Church.
The mainline (PCUSA) ratified that marginalization of the historic confessions with the adoption of the Confession of 1967, as part of which the PCUSA declared that the WCF could theoretically trump the Confession of ’67 but the working assumption is now that the Confession of ’67 is the norm unless the WCF could be shown to be more biblical. I don’t know that has happened in the intervening 40 years. With the adoption of the Confession of ’67 the WCF was made officially a museum piece, a witness to the religious experience of the 17th century and no more.
It is especially interesting that McCormack has commented on this because, he is one of the more prominent faculty members at PTS. He is a leading Barth scholar. His volume on Barth was, I think, a breakthrough piece of research. It located Barth in his time and, it seems to me, vindicated the substance of Van Til’s critique of Barth. Whether that was intentional or not I have no idea. He has also contributed usefully to the contemporary debates on justification. We both read papers several years ago at the Wheaton Theology conference. At one point in the discussion McCormack remonstrated with Robert Gundry for ignorantly beginning down the soteriological road to Rome—McCormack was quite clear that he did not think that was a bad thing necessarily but that it is an odd thing for an “evangelical” to do.
It is striking that a PTS prof is even paying attention to a theological argument happening at WTS. Perhaps there is some explanation. Though it is not widely known, he has roots in the marginalized NAPARC world (the PCUSA has about 2 million members meeting in prestigious tall-steeple congregations and PTS has enough money—much of which was once donated by orthodox confessional people who were naive about what was happening at PTS—to continue operating indefinitely whereas there are about 500,000 folk in NAPARC congregations meeting in obscure, ugly buildings and served by growing number of small NAPARC seminaries living hand-to-mouth). He isn’t writing entirely as an outsider, but, as I understand it, as one who was once a student, at least briefly, in a NAPARC seminary. He writes as an emigrant from the NAPARC world to the pluralist mainline world.
As to the substance of McCormack’s Christological argument, there is much with which to take issue.
McCormack writes
There is, you see, an ambiguity at the heart of the Chalcedonian Definition where the “Person” is concerned. On the one hand, the Definition can say that “the property of both natures is preserved and comes together into a single person and a single subsistent being.” On the other hand, the Definition can say, “he is not parted or divided into two persons, but is one and the same only-begotten Son, God, Word, Lord Jesus Christ…” On the basis of the first formulation, it would seem that the person is formed out of the coming together of the natures. On the basis of the second, it would seem that a straightforward and direct equation is being made of the “person” and the pre-existent Logos as such.
I am not a scholar of modern theology, but I’ve perceived that McCormack is defending what might politely be called an idiosyncratic Christology, so that his entrance into the controversy is not innocent. He has a view to defend and propagate, i.e. a renewed version of a kenotic Christology. The Reformed churches do not confess a kenotic Christology of any sort. I’m willing to be corrected, but wouldn’t it raise eyebrows if someone proposed to revise a Eutyichian or Nestorian Christology?
Second, I am puzzled by his analysis of the Definition. When it says “into a single person” it is not obvious that it is intends to teach that the person of Jesus is composite. One cannot add up the two natures to get Jesus any more than one can add up the three persons and get the sum of the Trinity. The one God subsists in three persons. The one person of Jesus subsists in two natures. This seems to be a flawed premise in his argument. It seems that McCormack finds something in Chalcedon that isn’t there and, as a consequence, misreads the Reformed confessions.
According to McCormack there is tension between two propositions in the Definition that find witness here and there. He critiques the Second Helvetic Confession as unorthodox. He is particularly offended by Bullinger’s use of the phrase “two hypostases,” noting that A. C. Cochrane omitted that expression from his edition of the Second Helvetic. Now there are things in Bullinger’s theology from which I dissent but the Scots Presbyterians didn’t see any fundamental, Christological heresy or error in the Second Helvetic when they adopted it as a secondary standard. The Second Helvetic was widely used in England and across the Continent. So far as I know, none of the Reformed churches accused the Second Helvetic of being Christologically unorthodox.
One difficulty with McCormack’s analysis with the Second Helvetic is that in the Latin text of the Second Helvetic, the only place I can find the word “hypostases” is in 3.3 where it says, “ita ut sint tres non quidem Dii sed tres Personæ consubstantiales, coæternæ et coæquales, distinctæ quoad hypostases, et ordine alia aliam præcedens, nulla tamen inæqualitate.” [Therefore there are not three gods, but three persons, consubstantial, co-eternal, and coequal; distinct regarding hypostases, and regarding order, the one preceding the other nevertheless without any inequality.]
I don’t see how this is problematic. In ch. 11, where Bullinger actually deals with Christology, he doesn’t use the word “hypostasis.” On the two natures he wrote:
6. Agnoscimus ergo in uno atque eodem Domino nostro Jesu Christo duas naturas vel substantias, divinam et humanam; et has ita dicimus conjunctas et unitas esse, ut absorptæ, aut confusæ, aut inmixtæ non sint, sed salvis potius et permanentibus naturarum proprietatibus, in una persona, unitæ vel conjunctæ; ita ut unum Christum Dominum, non duos veneremur: unum inquam verum Deum, et hominem, juxta divinam naturam Patri, juxta humanam vero nobis hominibus consubstantialem, et per omnia similem, peccato excepto.
7. Etenim, ut Nestorianum dogma ex uno Christo duos faciens, et unionem personæ dissolvens, abominamur: ita Eutychetis et Monothelitarum vel Monophysicorum vesaniam, expungentem naturæ humanæ proprietatem execramur penitus.
[ We therefore acknowledge two natures or substances, the divine and the human, in one and the same Jesus Christ our Lord. And we say that these are bound and united with one another in such a way that they are not absorbed, or confused, or mixed, but are united or joined together in one person the properties of the natures being unimpaired and permanent.
Thus we worship not two but one Christ the Lord. We repeat: one true God and man. With respect to his divine nature he is consubstantial with the Father, and with respect to the human nature he is consubstantial with us men, and like us in all things, sin excepted.
And indeed we detest the dogma of the Nestorians who make two of one Christ and dissolve the unity of the Person. Likewise we thoroughly execrate the madness of Eutyches and of the Monothelites or Monophysites who destroy the property of the human nature.]
The Second Helvetic goes on to affirm explicitly a doctrine of the “communicatio idiomatum,” (communication of properties) i.e. what can be said one nature or the other can be said of the person.
McCormack accuses Calvin of following Bullinger’s alleged error. “The same idea can be found in Calvin (who mistakenly believed that this was the view of all the orthodox Fathers).” McCormack contrinues by attributing to the WCF the doctrine that Jesus is a “compound person,” a doctrine which he says is derived from John of Damascus, whom Zwingli read in Latin, and which was transmitted to Bullinger, and finally to the WCF.
Here is Belgic Confession Art.19:
We believe that by this conception the person of the Son is inseparably united and connected with the human nature; so that there are not two Sons of God, nor two persons, but two natures united in one single person; yet each nature retains its own distinctive properties. As, then, the divine nature has always remained uncreated, without beginning of days or end of life, filling heaven and earth, so also has the human nature not lost its properties but remained a creature, having beginning of days, being a finite nature, and retaining all the properties of a real body. And though he has by his resurrection given immortality to the same, nevertheless he has not changed the reality of his human nature; forasmuch as our salvation and resurrection also depend on the reality of his body.
Two natures, one person. This is substantially the same Christology in all the Reformed confessions, including WCF ch. 8:
2. The Son of God, the second person in the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance and equal with the Father, did, when the fullness of time was come, take upon him man’s nature, with all the essential properties, and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin; being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the virgin Mary, of her substance. So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion. Which person is very God, and very man, yet one Christ, the only Mediator between God and man.
3. The Lord Jesus, in his human nature thus united to the divine, was sanctified, and anointed with the Holy Spirit, above measure, having in him all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge; in whom it pleased the Father that all fullness should dwell; to the end that, being holy, harmless, undefiled, and full of grace and truth, he might be thoroughly furnished to execute the office of a mediator, and surety. Which office he took not unto himself, but was thereunto called by his Father, who put all power and judgment into his hand, and gave him commandment to execute the same.
The phrase, “without conversion, composition, or confusion” is essential to this discussion. It would seem that his whole argument depends upon the premise that there was an unresolved tension in Chalcedon, in which the Reformed confession took sides, and upon his claim that he, of course, represents the Reformed confessional view.
All this is prologue to his criticism of one side in the Enns controversy. He concludes by accusing the writers of the WTS/P Historical and Theological Field Committee Report of unintentionally stumbling toward a Lutheran and E. Orthodox Christology, of not articulating clearly enough the true doctrine of the anhypostatic human personality of Christ and thereby moving toward a kind of theosis (which he rightly notes is very hip right now).
This last aspect of the argument, about whether the HTFC report is orthodox or right or wrong, interests me less than how McCormack gets to his criticism and it interests me less than the fact that he’s paying attention to these sorts of discussions. Most fascinating of all, however, is to see an early 21st-century PTS prof lecturing WTS/P profs about not being confessional enough. Fascinating indeed.
UPDATE 22 May: For those looking for a more substantial review of McCormack’s essay here’s Mark Jones’ take.
UPDATE 23 May: Stephen Holmes has commented here. He says, in part, “…it seems to me that WTS cannot be criticised for being a confessional institution. It is open and honest about its stance, Enns and everyone else knows about it.”
“… my overwhelming sense is that the real problem is that WTS was not confessional enough, or at least not secure enough in its own confessional status. What was needed was a paragraph, at most two, saying ‘Peter Enns published the following statements which we judge to contradict such-and-such an article of the Westminster Confession of Faith,’ which could then have been argued over by interested parties.”
UPDATE 23 May: Arthur Boulet was kind enough to email saying that Bruce has written a response to my questions/observations and it is to appear at 5:00PM. I assume that’s 5PM Eastern.
Was this published? If so, where? I personally think he makes some catastrophic mistakes.
It’s linked above.
I was wondering if it was a journal article that had also been posted (with permission) on the net! I guess not.
Hi Mark,
He’s drawing on his recent lectures/writing on Christology. I haven’t been following it as I try to pay attention mostly to dead writers and Bruce is still very much alive.
I will not enter in on the Reformed Creeds, but the Oecumenical Councils, of both Nicaea and Chalcendon, where the Trinity and the Person of Christ are righty defined, are foremost theologically. It must be noted that some at Chalcedon (that did not sign it, the Coptic’s and Syriac Christians) did not see the two natures of Christ as distinct and separate, but took as St. Cyril of Alexandria: ‘one incarnate nature of God the Logos.’ They believed that Christ has one united nature out of two: divinity and humanity. A composite nature of both the human and divine. Today the Coptic and Oriental Orthodox call this Miaphysite rather than Monophysite.
But, the Creed of Chalcedon’s characterization of the union of the divine and human natures in Christ…”Without separation and without confusion”.
*nature
Thanks for this clarification Scott. I turned to Bavinck, Volume 3 immediately on reading this. He presents the Reformed position quite differently than McCormack. Made me wonder whether there is some other agenda here.
Just want to make one correction. The bulk of Princeton Seminary’s endowment is due to the contributions and investment strategies of John Templeton, Sr., who is fully aware of Princeton Seminary’s place in the Christian church. Don’t get too jealous.
Hi Antoine,
I don’t disagree that Templeton money is a big part of PTS’s wealth but they have endowments and gifts that go back a long way, that were given by people that held a rather different faith than has been taught at PTS since 1929. Those earlier donations built PTS and sustained it for a long time before Templeton was born (1912).
“It would seem that his whole argument depends upon the premise that there was an unresolved tension in Chalcedon, in which the Reformed confession took sides, and upon his claim that he, of course, represents the Reformed confessional view.”
A few comments, for what they’re worth:
(1) As I read it, the whole argument depends on whether or not the HTFC report is faithful to the Reformed sources. McCormack made an extensive case that the HTFC report is not faithful to those sources, and your remarks and citations didn’t challenge the substance of that case.
(2) McCormack doesn’t say that he “represents the Reformed confessional view.” He says: “My own view is that a carefully contextualized reading of the Definition will show that it is the second of these opinions which is correct. But here’s the thing: classical Reformed theology clearly stood on the side of the first of these options – not the second.” The question isn’t about his own Christology; it’s about the Christology of major figures in classical Reformed theology. He’s not defending his own view; he’s saying that the HTFC doesn’t match the views of classical Reformed theologians.
(3) I think the most interesting comment in your post was found in your last paragraph: “This last aspect of the argument, about whether the HTFC report is orthodox or right or wrong, interests me less than how McCormack gets to his criticism and it interests me less than the fact that he’s paying attention to these sorts of discussions.” This is amazing: the orthodoxy and theological correctness doesn’t matter to you, but the process and the location from which the criticism is derived does? That seems like process matters more than substance.
(4) “Most fascinating of all, however, is to see an early 21st-century PTS prof lecturing WTS/P profs about not being confessional enough.” It’s only fascinating because the lecture seems to be necessary.
Um…. frankly this was a grossly speculative ad hominem attack. I think he had enough actual content in his essay to talk about without trying to guess about his motive for having interest or criticizing the place where he works.
Thank God for the Oecumenical Councils of both Nicaea and Chalcedon! And the Orthodox Church who maintains their integrity!
Fr. Robert
Comboxes are great. If you agree with the original article’s author, you can always take issue with contrarian posters.
Re. JC’s points:
1) Go back and read both articles. a) McC’s case is about as “extensive” as RSC’s reply; b) neither of these PhDs was writing a scholarly treatise; c) RSC challenged a critical premise without which McC’s “substance” won’t carry its water. Clark didn’t have to write a para-by-para response, or an essay of equal length to reply cogently.
2) Not really that relevant to the reply to simply repeat one of McC’s theses and exegete it. But thanks.
3) You don’t get it. The entire evaluation, starting with McC’s is a question of historical theology. RSC’s point isn’t to get into a discussion on the finer points of McC’s theology or that of the HTFC. In this place, Bruce’s or Scott’s place on the theological spectrum isn’t even germane to the issue of who is handling and interpreting the sources with accuracy, who might be bringing what kind of tendentious issues to the table with them.
And why wouldn’t it be interesting that PTS (represented by the esteemed BMcC) is expressing a kind of voyeuristic interest in that “upstart” seminary across the river, founded by losers of the 1920s & ’30s tug-of-war for the soul of American Presbyterianism? Apparently it is only of note when attempts are made to once again combat trends of modernity and post-modernity. The original question of PTS’s identity comes back to haunt us. The PC in 1929 decided the PTS hold-out had to go, making virtually the entire seminary structure in the PC homogeneous–and liberal. So much for celebrating diversity, eh? Because one thing we know the tolerantistas can’t tolerate: is a view that recognizes such modernity as acidic, corrosive.
4) If you only knew…, Ichabod. Then maybe the irony would have bite.
Re. SS,
You should read more widely. And take a course in logic. And if RSC attacked “the man” you should be able to produce evidence to that effect.
Why is it that BMcC can criticize the people from WTS (reports don’t write themselves), and I don’t hear you sharing your equal-opportunity outrage with his “out-of-bounds” assessment? Or do your favored combatants get preferential treatment? I’m sorry, did you post a similar criticism of Bruce at the site of the original essay? I must have missed it in the excitement…
Jason,
You write: “McCormack made an extensive case that the HTFC report is not faithful to those sources, and your remarks and citations didn’t challenge the substance of that case.”
I may be wrong, but he refers to the wording of the report only twice – HTFC p. 20, 23. That hardly warrants an “extensive case” in my opinion. In fact, given that his major premise was, as you suggest (correctly), to show that the HTFC report is not faithful to Reformed sources, I would have expected a good deal more interaction with the report itself.
Then, in point 2 you quote and write: ‘“My own view is that a carefully contextualized reading of the Definition will show that it is the second of these opinions which is correct. But here’s the thing: classical Reformed theology clearly stood on the side of the first of these options – not the second.” The question isn’t about his own Christology; it’s about the Christology of major figures in classical Reformed theology. He’s not defending his own view; he’s saying that the HTFC doesn’t match the views of classical Reformed theologians.’
I wish McCormack had given us a “carefully contextualized reading of the Definition”. Instead, he argues for two competing theologies in the Creed which, to my mind, is “shaky at best”. He posits a dichotomy that isn’t there in the first place and one that Reformed theologians wouldn’t recognize. It’s McCormack who has set up a straw-man and he refutes it with consummate ease only because it’s unrecognizable to most Reformed theologians. I think you’ll find that he has read into the HTFC what is not there and so his case rests upon a misapprehension of the true facts.
Re: point 3. You quote and write: “I think the most interesting comment in your post was found in your last paragraph: “This last aspect of the argument, about whether the HTFC report is orthodox or right or wrong, interests me less than how McCormack gets to his criticism and it interests me less than the fact that he’s paying attention to these sorts of discussions.” This is amazing: the orthodoxy and theological correctness doesn’t matter to you, but the process and the location from which the criticism is derived does? That seems like process matters more than substance.”
Quite frankly, I, too, was amazed at how he arrived at his criticism. I don’t personally feel that there are unresolved tensions in the Chalcedonian Creed and, therefore, can’t understand how McCormack arrives at the “two options” thesis. And arguing that the victory belonged to either Nestorius (the first view) or Cyril (the second view) is laughable because the Reformed resisted fiercely Nestorianism and yet, according to McCormack, they “clearly stood on the side of the first of these options – not the second”.
I think if you read Owen carefully, you will see that he shared was a lot closer to Cyril (second view) than Nestorius (first view) and yet classical Reformed theologians supposedly sided with the Nestorian view?
Your last point (#4) is betrayed by the fact that McCormack has erected a straw-man and fails to adequately interact with the HTFC report. And I’m pretty sure Carl Trueman would know whether he is advocating a Christology that is without confessional basis.
If you want my opinion (I’m sure you don’t, but here it is), McCormack has read far too much into the report and his subsequent historical and theological reflection is driven by his idea that the WTS guys wanted a “Christology which will allow them to argue for an asymmetry in the relationship of divine authorship to human authorship of the Bible”. It might be clear to McCormack, but I don’t feel as confident as he in terms of motive!
Mark Jones
Bruce, you ask (following RS Clark) why “PTS, represented by the esteemed BMcC, is expressing a kind of voyeuristic interest in that upstart seminary across the river”. Honestly, I can’t imagine how McCormack’s reflections could strike you as “voyeuristic”, or why RS Clark should devote more than half of his response to uncovering McCormack’s suspicious motives.
As far as I can tell, there’s nothing detached or cynical or sneering about McCormack’s post; the assumption that his post has some dark secret motive, or some hidden voyeuristic undercurrent, seems a little perverse to me. Clearly McCormack identifies himself as both a Reformed theologian and an evangelical: isn’t that good enough reason for him to be “interested” in Peter Enns’ suspension? Is it really so hard to believe that Reformed evangelicals outside WTS might actually care about this stuff?
Hi Ben,
To be clear, I don’t regard McCormack’s interest in this question as voyeuristic. I’m not suspicious about his motives. He’s got his own Christological interests so I don’t think he’s doing pure, disinterested analysis. It does to serve to call into question the theological competence of Enn’s WTS/P critics, and that’s worth noting. I don’t doubt, however, that Bruce (McCormack) has a genuine interest. That’s why I noted his evangelical connections. The fact that he’s publishing with and hanging out with conservative types is
As I said, my main interest is to note the irony of a PTS prof and mainline theologian rebuking Westminster types for not being sufficiently confessional. As I tried to suggest in the post, I’m not sure his case holds up but that he thought he should say something and that he sees things this way (through ostensibly confessional lenses) is very interesting indeed.
For one thing it suggests that some form of confessionalism has found purchase beyond the narrow confines of the separatist presbyterian/reformed ecclesiastical world. For another, there are theologians and writers within the NAPARC world who would sooner jump off a bridge than make an argument that such and such a view is not confessional. In other words, here we have a significant mainline voice attempting to argue a creedal/confessionalist case to people who should be confessional when many in our own circles are committed to biblicistic methods.
Irish,
So, E. Orthodoxy, as it exists today, dropped out of the sky pure and fully developed and there’s been no development in 2000 years of theological reflection?
That sounds like the same sort of spooky historiography one finds among fundamentalist Baptists. Where they have a doughnut historiography (there’s a big hole where most of the church should be) the E. Orthodox have a pure, idealistic undisturbed, fully developed ecclesiastical and theological monolith. That must be truly comforting to have missed all the messiness of historical development.
Perhaps that’s why so many fundies find E. Orthodoxy so attractive? It’s the same program only with icons in place of flannel boards.
Everyone needs to go read McCormack’s short essay:
For Us and Our Salvation: Incarnation and Atonement in the Reformed Tradition in “Studies in Reformed Theology and History”, vol.1 (Princeton: Princeton Theological Seminary, 1993).
There are a lot of hasty, uninformed judgments being made left and right.
The simple fact is that Chalcedon was a compromise statement between Antiochenes and Alexandrians. The conflict was not completely settled, however, and has repeated itself throughout the history of the church. The Lutheran / Reformed controversy is a prime example. Lutherans emphasized the unity of the person, Reformed emphasized the integrity of the natures. McCormack is not accusing the Reformed of being Nestorian, though. He is simply saying that they had a concern to uphold the full humanity of Jesus against what they thought to be the Lutheran error.
Hi Lucy,
That’s an interesting claim but strikes me as a much too simplistic explanation for the differences between Lutherans and the Reformed Christologies.
I’m not a patrologist, and this is an area where I’m currently doing some reading, but I have done a little work in 16th-century sources. I’ll see your McCormack essay (which I’m happy to read — as a I say, I’m a big fan) and raise you a chapter in Caspar Olevian and the Substance of the Covenant on Lutheran and Reformed Christologies in the 16th-century.
I’ll read Bruce on Chalcedon, will you read Clark on Olevian and Lutheran orthodoxy?
A few more comments:
(a) Mark Jones, thanks for the response. It seems that the main thing holding you up is that McCormack “argues for two competing theologies in the Creed which, to my mind, is “shaky at best”.” Many scholars don’t think that’s a shaky claim, though, because it has been thoroughly defended by solid patristic scholars. The most recent source that lays out the history of Chalcedon in this way is John McGuckin’s ‘Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy.’ McGuckin is a very good patristic scholar, and he shows in his book that there were two parties competing at Chalcedon, and the final result was a victory (although not a total one) for one party over the other. That argument is not some fly-by-night claim; it’s rooted in solid scholarship.
That’s the book that McCormak is interacting with as he’s thinking about Cyril and making his argument. So when you say “wish McCormack had given us a ‘carefully contextualized reading of the Definition’,”you are right that McCormack doesn’t give you one in his brief essay. But McGuckin gives it to you in his book–and McCormack is assuming his argument in the background. In other words, McCormack is not just making this stuff up: this is mainstream and widely-accepted scholarship on the history of Chalcedon. Lucy had it right on how this division played out later on and McCormack’s point about it.
(b) Bruce, you said, “In this place, Bruce’s or Scott’s place on the theological spectrum isn’t even germane to the issue of who is handling and interpreting the sources with accuracy, who might be bringing what kind of tendentious issues to the table with them.” We would agree, because that was my point. Why take all the jabs at PTS and Bruce’s scholarship in the original post? Why accuse Bruce of having a “not innocent” reason for entering into the debate?
I think you’d find the modern PTS a very different place than you think. There are as many conservatives as liberals on the campus nowadays. In fact, there are more conservative evangelicals in the student body than any other group! There also are many scholars like McCormack on campus who teach the Reformed tradition carefully and care deeply about it. That’s why there’s a genuine interest in the WTS debate: McCormack and others are Reformed theologians in the truest sense of the word. They think Reformed theology has something to say in the modern world of scholarship, especially one in which Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy seem to be the default options for most scholars. That’s why they’re interested–if Reformed theology is being undermined in some way, then they have to (and should) speak out on it.
As a recent PTS grad, I would like to second Jason’s description of “modern PTS.” I think it’s not surprising at all that a PTS prof is interested in what is going on at WTS. Indeed, not long ago I attended a conference at PTS where two scholars associated with WTS (one from CA, in fact) were invited to give papers. I knew three PhD students who had their Masters degrees from WTS.
Before I enrolled at PTS, I had a Westminster-CA grad warn me ominously about what PTS was like. As it turned out, he was largely wrong. I found a deep and committed engagement to reformed identity in both students and faculty. I sometimes wonder if the WTS view of PTS is still colored by 1929?
Futhermore, I would have thought that McCormack’s engagement would be welcomed, instead of greeted with a certain suspicion of motives and incredulity: (“HE’s correcting US?!?!”) Isn’t this precisely the kind of theological engagement that WTS should applaud, welcome, and encourage?
I don’t know why that emoticon showed up in my comment. it wasn’t intentional
R. Scott Clark: I was not trying really to jump down into your mess. But Nicaea and Chalcedon are eastern Councils and creeds. And indeed the Church east and west is always a pilgrim church. And this itself, should give us all some humility!
Though I am myself an Anglican rector-ax-bishop, but I am well into my 50’s. I have in the past been part of a society for Anglican-Orthodox dialogue (Great Britain). I must admit too, that I have personally one foot in Orthodoxy. And both feet on their understanding and work on these creeds. “The dogma of consubstantiality, which safeguards the unity of the Holy Trinity, thus remains a sealed book so far as we are concerned – for in a religious sense it has been neither assimilated nor unfolded.” (Fr. Serguis Bulgakov)
The Orthodox and Eastern Church (so-called) has no creeds in the modern western use of the word, no normative summaries of what must be believed. It has preserved the older idea that a creed is an adoring confession of the Church engaged in worship. The eastern creeds may thus be placed in two classes – the eumenical creeds of the early undivided church, and later testimonies defining the position of the Orthodox Church of the east with regard to the beliefs of the Roman Catholic and of the Protestant Churches. The first four councils settled the Orthodox faith on the doctrines of the Trinity and the two natures of the one person of Christ; the fifth supplemented the decisions of the first four.
The great dogmatic work of the Eastern and Orthodox Church was the definition of that portion of the creed of Christendom which concerns theology proper – the doctrines of the essential nature of the Godhead and the doctrine of the Godhead in relation with manhood in the incarnation.
Fr. Robert…”Irish”
The book mentioned by John McGuckin: Saint Cyril of Alex..& the Christological Contro. is very good. And I believe an American Orthodoox publisher..St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press? It appears a must read on this subject!
Hi Andy,
I don’t know how to be any clearer. I’m not suspicious of Bruce’s interest in this question. I doubt his exegesis of the Second Helvetic Confession (for the reasons that I gave in the post—the word hypostasis isn’t used as I understand how Bruce to be claiming—but that isn’t the same thing as suspicion.
As to WSC and PTS, not having attended or ever visited PTS, I couldn’t comment. I can say, however, that there is a genuine and profound difference between the confession of ’67 and the PCUSA on the one hand, and the WCF and the NAPARC congregations on the other. I’ve observed a growing evangelical presence at PTS (from afar) and view it as largely a good thing — though I do suspect that evangelicalism and the mainline were never really that far apart.
I agree with Hart. The contemporary resurgence of evangelicals at PTS supports his claim that the categories “conservative” and “liberal” aren’t adequate to account for post-1700 Protestantism. The categories we should be using are “confessional” and “non-confessional.”
I hope you’ll read his Lost Soul of American Protestantism. It’s one of the most important books written by anyone from our orbit in a long time.
Finally, I welcome the new/re-renewed engagement with PTS. Mike and Darryl were at PTS last June (I think) to read papers on Barth. Those should be forthcoming. That’s a good thing.
I don’t think that my tentative response to some of Bruce’s clams should be read as hostility or suspicion. I’m pretty sure that Bruce doesn’t think that his work is beyond criticism and mine certainly isn’t.
Andy,
ps. Did you read my explanation above, in the combox, of my motive?
Thanks. You did make a substantive response to McCormack, and that’s not what gave me the impression of incredulity or suspicion.
But the title of the post did–which I teasingly rephrased as “HE’S correcting US?!”, as did your conclusion, where you say, …”it interests me less than the fact that he’s paying attention to these sorts of discussions. Most fascinating of all, however, is to see an early 21st-century PTS prof lecturing WTS/P profs about not being confessional enough.” This point is repeated in the combox. My only point is to say that it’s not all that fascinating or ironic, given what I know about the institution and the professor. And given that a lot of water has gone under the bridge since 1929.
You deal with his claims–this I have no problem with. But a good part of the post (at least, your main interest, as you say) is not with those claims, but rather with the very fact that the discussion is even being had. That a PTS prof, of all thing, is “lecturing” WTS faculty. It smacks of “who is he to talk to us this way?” If not explicitly, then at least implicitly. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Andy,
Whatever resurgence of evangelicalism there might be at PTS, it wasn’t long ago that another Bruce (Metzger) was virtually the only faculty member of whom I’m aware who had anything like an evangelical commitment. Further, PTS was downright hostile to Reformed orthodoxy for a very long time. In that period obscure little seminaries such at WTS (it was a very small school during the 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s and not terribly large until the Vietnam-era, baby-boomer, students began swelling enrollment numbers). In that time it was very difficult for a WTS grad even to gain admission to a PTS PhD program. I knew grads from those in-between years and the hostility they voiced toward Machen and all things confessional revealed the things they were being taught and the spirit in which things were taught.
I’m not saying that there was no reciprocal hostility across the river. There certainly was. Of course the WTS guys were the “losers” and the moderates and libs were the winners. The mods and libs got the buildings, bodies, and budgets and we got bupkis. It was because of this hostility that CVT frequenlty made old Princeton a villain in his history of dogma. I’ve complained about that story and sought to correct it where necessary (which has caused some to accuse me of being anti-Van Til).
Whatever is happening now, PTS has certainly not been historically identified, not since the exile of Machen & co, as a confessional or confessionalist school. Thus, there is a certain irony in having a PTS prof lecture faculty at the separatist and ostensibly confessionalist school for not being sufficiently confessional.
Bruce.
I think there are valid objections to BMcC’s essay. But I think that it’s a weak case that starts and continues by attacking his ideas and knocking him as a person (i.e. where he teaches… and his own theological background). (hence the label ad hominem) – If Brittany Speers criticizes you for using corporal punishment with your kids, it’s technically a logical propaganda technique to first defend yourself by pointing out her obvious lack of qualifications. (although in that case everyone would understand.) I think as reflected by others in the comments, I guess I was looking for a post combating BMcC’s theology rather than a mostly pointing out a certainly valid historical irony in PTS lecturing WTS on orthodoxy. I don’t think BMcC is wrong about his history just because he teaches at PTS. On speculative – I think on writing on his Psychological perspective as a marginalized NAPARC member is complete speculation. Maybe he respects WTS… or has given guest lectures there in the past, or talks to professors or students from time to time… or I donno, maybe it’s a pretty big story in the theological world. Actually I think all of my guesses are right.
Typo… But I think that it’s a weak case that starts and continues by attacking his institution and knocking him as a person, rather than his ideas.
Sam,
I’ve responded and I don’t think you can accuse me of not interacting with his theology, even if I don’t do a good job. But there’s no Barthian slanders coming from my way which, I hear, has been the response of some in private.
Mark
My initial comment was that the initial post above would have been more effective if it either stuck to the historical irony (which is fodder for both sides of the debate BTW) or the actual historic/theological content. Either of which would make interesting posts, but combining the two seems like a faulty persuasive technique, and I’m not sure how speculating about his theological biography and reasons for interest in WTS added to the discussion. I think there there’s enough debate in the essay itself (thomasgoodwin’s post for example) without attacking the writer, or where he works.
Sam, I think you’re nit-picking a bit much on the form of this post. This is a blog, not an academic publication.
I’m also not entirely perceiving where exactly this vicious attack on McCormack’s person is to be found. In fact, there seems to be praise for his work on Barth. I also didn’t find it difficult to separate the comments on the historical irony from the comments on the content. I dunno… maybe it comes from learning not to take the blogosphere so seriously. It helps one sleep better at night.