Retractare and Summary

My friend Daniel Ritchie has offered his own version of retractare in the past.  I want to do mine.  These are in no particular order.

The Theonomy People
  They are to be commended for influencing Reformed scholars to go back to careful study of the Old Testament (Poythress said he wouldn't have written his work if it weren't for Rushdoony).  They are to be commended for their critique of absolute statism, but there are problems.  The post-theonomy (for lack of a better word, this would be the third generation theonomists) are probably guilty of violating the 9th commandment.  Their unceasing attacks on men like Michael Horton and others at Westminster Seminary California are uncalled for.  I disagree with Horton and Co.'s  social ethic, but the man is a minister in Christ's church and Horton has probably done as much as anybody in spreading the Reformed faith.  I admit; it's sometimes funny to watch D.G. Hart get riled up, but the falsely so-called "R2K" guys have majored on the majors:  The doctrine of worship and the church.  Modern American Theonomy, by contrast, has largely failed in this area.

1. As for my own position, I believe the Old Testament law can be used today when necessary.
2. This does not preclude natural law, but presupposes it (more below)
3. Theonomy is not the position of the Reformers; natural law is.  Yes, Bucer used the Mosaic judicials, but only because he saw them as part of his natural law heritage.  We should do likewise.

Van Til
I've gone back and forth on Van Til for some time now.  I think when it comes to Roman Catholicism and explaining what Reformed theology is, Van Til is as fine as anybody.  His lectures on "chain-of-being" theology are quite good.   I think Reformed people are better served by a mix of Reformed scholasticism and Common Sense Realism.

1. As for my own position, I think the TAG method is an open-door to Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy.   It explicitly attacks the foundations of knowledge and inadvertently relativises truth-claims.  No longer having a clear revelation from God, one has Tradition (as interpreted by a certain community).
2. As for a positive apologetic, I don't really care.  I think Anselm is interesting and his ontological argument has some subordinate value.

Eschatology
This is a difficult one.  I think the Reformers (and quite frankly, the entire church) were wise never to use the "millennial" terms in explaining what they believe.  More often than not, modern Reformed eschatological questions are more political than anything else.  Saying, "I am postmil" or "common grace amil" implies more than the timing of Christ's return.

1. As for my own position, I am certainly a Reformed historicist.  
2. I appreciate a lot of what Kim Riddlebarger has to say on Covenant and New Testament eschatology.  I've always liked Vos and Ridderbos.
3. Historic premillennialism, while having a respectful pedigree, simply entails too many difficulties.  Further, I have found that the deeper I dig into historic premillennialism, the harder it is to be Reformed.
4. I think it is more important to be clear on eschatological hermeneutics than on identifying a millennial position.

Politics
For around five years I've been a fairly staunch defender of limited monarchy.  That's still the case.  My only difference now is that I do not see the Bible requiring it (or any specific mode of government).  Each style of government has its strengths and weaknesses.

1. Monarchists (like myself) need to admit that 1 Samuel 8 does place some restrictive parameters on the glory of monarchy.
2. Republicans (small "r") need to admit that the Torah did provide (and I think expected) a monarchy.   If that's not the case, then why is Deuteronomy 17 in the Bible?  Nelson Kloosterman has made a fairly convincing case that there existed a possibility that Israel could have had a king and not sinned in asking so.  Here is how I think it would have worked:  the end of the book of Judges essentially begs for a monarchy.  Deuteronomy 17 had already provided for a shepherd-king (the Christological overtones are deliberate).  Had Israel wanted a shepherd to guide them, I believe God would have praised their request.  Further, biblical eschatology moves in the direction of monarchy, not republicanism.
3. I am an adherent of an Althusian-style natural law theory.  The problem many theonomists had was that their critics (and the theonomists themselves) had said, "Natural law OR God's law."  But this is where theonomists and their critics were wrong.  Natural law is God's law, provided natural law is defined as creation ordinances.  The problem here is the inferences people drew from that phrase.   I won't go into that now.  More to the point, Reformed natural law theorists could gladly appeal (and did!) to the Mosaic judicials.  God's law is morally just and should be consulted.  Theonomists, by contrast, never provided satisfactory accounts of the New Testament's modification of the Mosaic law.

In Defense of Calvinist International on the Patristic Critique of Icons

A few days ago Steven W. gave a brief, but admirable summary of some earlier Patristic witnesses against the veneration of icons in the early church.  Granted, he wasn't writing a monograph and I think some of the claims could be developed a bit further, but as it stands it does provide a window into some aspects of church life.  

It has since come to the attention of a few Eastern Orthodox apologists.  In my post I plan to 1) consider the claims of both Wedgeworth and the EO interlocutor, and 2) offer my own historical conclusions on the matter.  Note:  I said historical conclusions, not dogmatic assertions.   If in response I am labeled "Nestorian" or "Monophysite," so what?  My interest is in examining some early church witnesses, not in the larger theology behind iconodulism.  

What Calvinist International Actually Said

CI simply notes a handful of pre-Nicene fathers and councils that express either reticence or disapproval with the use of icons.   Perhaps they could have further clarified their terms by saying some parts of the earlier church disapproved of icons.  I think such a clarification would have blunted future criticisms.   Be that as it may, Steven has produced incontrovertible evidence that Tertullian, Council of Elvira, Gregory the Great, and Epiphanius disapproved of the veneration of icons.  Note the qualification of terms:  we are not claiming that the early church fathers were Scottish Calvinists enforcing the RPW.  Having a picture of Jesus and actively venerating it are two separate issues.   Still, the fact remains that these historical witnesses disapproved of veneration.  The import of this claim will be revealed below.

The Eastern Orthodox Response

The EO interlocutor responds:

Does the evidence put forth by Pr Wedgeworth demonstrate that there has always been an equal opposition to icons and their veneration within the Orthodox-Catholic Church? Is that evidence being properly represented and understood? Were they isolated voices, or part of a large opposition to icons in the history of the Church?

I don't think Pr. Wedgeworth is actually claiming a continual and equal opposition.   I have my own conclusions on the matter, but I think he is simply noting an early and substantial, although admittedly limited in scope opposition. 

The interlocutor then responds to Wedgeworth's use of Peter Brown's scholarship.  I am going to leave that aside for the moment.  My own particular conclusions do not rest on Brown.    The EO apologist notes that Rome, and thus the West, was represented at 2nd Nicea.  True, and I have my own thoughts on that as well. 

He goes on to write,

While the iconoclastic controversy itself was originally rooted in the eastern part of the empire, its resolution was an ecumenical one; a resolution that had the full support of the entire Catholic Church (as shown in Basil’s confession). The life and witness of the Orthodox-Catholic Church since the 9th century confirms this to be the case, over and against any ahistorical or abstract inquiries into isolated statements, both before and after that time.  (emphasis added)

No one denies that Orthodoxy has been iconodulic since the 9th century.   His sentence in that quote, though, does not follow.   He asserts that Steven's inquiry is ahistorical, yet he is the one casually dismissing Brown's evidence.   Who's acting ahistorically?  Further, he simply precludes (without epistemological warrant) any historical investigation into the matter.   This is ultimately what turned me off to anchoretism.  Whenever historical, biblical, or logical anamolies were brought into the equation, they are simply dismissed.

Continuing,

When attempting to understand both Patristic writings and the Holy Scriptures, it is necessary to do so within a right context; and that right context is the life of the Church, not our best guess at its reconstruction

The irony is that the easy access all traditions have to Patristic literature today is largely a result of the "reconstruction" of the German Calvinist Phillip Schaff.  

then there would’ve been a palpable outcry of opposition at the very onset of their introduction. By most standards, the introduction of iconography into the usage of the Church is seen to have occurred between the first and fourth centuries AD. As a result, any evidence related to icons during this period should be examined with this kept in mind. If icons were introduced during this time frame, and there is not an overwhelmingly violent reaction to such innovation and idolatry in the writings of the Fathers, what could one be led to conclude?

The problem, though, is "what counts as outcry?"  Evidently, Tertullian, Epiphanius, and Gregory the Great, not to mention Elvira, do not.  Why not?   

My Own Historical Conclusions

One of the apologetic claims of many Anchorites is that they have the faith once delivered to the saints, which faith is evident "everywhere, at all times, and by all."   Of course, no one means this literally.  We certainly account for folks here and there dissenting.  My contention, however, is that the above-cited men do function as reliable historical witnesses to the life of the earlier church.   Yes, Tertullian slipped into heresy, but few deny his value as a historical witness.     It has been pointed out that the Council of Elvira was only a local council and not binding on all Christians.  True, but the fact that it was a Council and not merely an individual, does indicate that it reliably reports the church practices of a significant amount of Christians in a time and place.   This is particularly devastating to the traditional argument  for icons:  we have here a noticeable example of counter-evidence.  

The historical problem becomes thus: if iconodulism is part of the faith once delivered to all the saints, and if Vincent's canon applies, then we must account for the fact that we have a substantial section of the church ruling against icons and no one says a word about it.  The EO interlocutor says that if icons were forbidden, then why wasn't there an outcry?  Well, there was.  See: Elvira, Epiphanius, and Gregory, not to mention the Council of Heira.  Yes, it might have been a robber baron's council, but it was still a noticeable outcry.

Rome and Icons

He notes that Rome supported the conclusions of 2nd Nicea.  True, but Rome applied it differently.   The Carolignian Church was hesitant about venerating icons.  Charlemagne was suspicious of the East at this time (see Joseph Farrell's work).

Some Notes from Augustine

Granted, Eastern Orthodox guys do not like Augustine.  The fact remains, though, that Orthodox councils have called him a saint.   Regardless, he functions as a good historical witness.  He writes,

If this were not the case (e.g., the reasoning faculty is in no way subordinate to human authority) there would be no heretics, no schismatics, no circumcised in the flesh, no creature- and icon worshippers (The True Religion, 24.45-25.47, quoted in Vernon Bourke, The Essential Augustine, 33).

Again,

For it is unlawful for a Christian to set up any image of God in a temple... (On Faith and the Creed, ca. 8, NPNF Series II: vol. 3: 327)