"A superficial study of the Heidelberg Catechism may make the impression that the atoning sacrifice of Christ accomplished on the cross is not only essential, but also fundamental and principial, in its doctrinal system of redemption. It teaches, that Christ bore in body and soul the wrath of God against the sin of the whole human race, in order that by His passion, as 'the only atoning sacrifice, He might redeem our body and soul from everlasting damnation (Q. 37); that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross is the only ground of our salvation, and that our whole-salvation stands in the one sacrifice of Christ, made for us on the cross' (Q. 67). Again, the Catechism says 'that we have full forgiveness of all our sins by the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ' (Q. 80). Many other expressions occur, which are equally explicit. That this doctrinal system underlies and animates the Heidelberg Catechism we cannot believe. The notion is incompatible with the central position of the Creed; incompatible also with its conception of the gospel, as an order of grace standing in the personal history of Jesus Christ." (emphasis added) “The Doctrine of the Catechism concerning the Atoning Death of Christ." Reformed Church Messenger (September 17, 1873)
Saturday, March 18, 2006
Mercersburg on the Atonement, Part 1
To help readers get better acquainted with the teachings and doctrines of Mercersburg Theology and its departure from the historic Reformed faith, I intend to post some of their writings here to better familiarize others with just exactly what they taught -- from their own statements and writings. The following is taken from an article published by one of the Mercersburg theology professors and a disciple of John Williamson Nevin and Philip Schaff. In this article the author rejects that the doctrine of substitutionary atonement of Christ is taught in the Heidelberg Catechism and that the doctrine is incompatible with the gospel. Here are his words taken from the official publication of the German Reformed Church:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Patrick:
Very interesting. I feel like I'm missing the larger context of what this guy (who is he, by the way) is saying? Specific names would be helpful here. Could you maybe provide a little rationale for what is being said? Surely he doesn't want to be a heretic! Every theology stresses something at the expense of something else. What truth, if any, was this author trying to stress? Just curious ... Thanks for centering the debate back to sources. As Calvin and Erasmus would have said: Ad fontes!
Hello, again:
While we're on the subject of stressing one truth at the expense of another, don't you think Mercersburg was a useful counterargument to statements like Dabney's: "Hence, afterward, transubstantiation and consubstantiation, and the more refined, though equally impossible theory of Calvin, of a literal, and yet only spiritual feeding on the whole person" (Dabney, in the last post).
If I remember correctly, Hodge also didn't like Calvin's view of the Supper. So, if we're discussing who is in the camp of Reformed orthodoxy, why are we accepting Hodge and Dabney vs. Calvin on the Supper? Who's actually a Calvinist here :-) Is this part of gospel progress and theological maturation? Or did American Presbyterians actually forget to stress some things the reformers stressed?
Gregory,
The article was unsigned, as was common back then. Speculation is that it was William Rupp or E.V. Gerhart.
The point that the writer is trying to make is that atonement was not effected by a substitutionary sacrifice, but rather, by Christ assuming "generic humanity" at the Incarnation instead of a unique, individual humanity (the later the position of the creeds and most of Christendom). Christ becomes the new Adam not just for the elect, but for all humanity. Since all of humanity has this germ implanted, the "theanthropic life" is cultivated through the sacraments of the Church, and all grace is mediated though that same agency. This is Nevin's view of mystical union and what drew the most criticism from Nevin's detractors, like Hodge and Dabney. This background on Mercersburg's understanding of union with Christ is essential for understanding their entire system: soteriology, sacraments, etc.
Now I expect that Nevin's modern-day supporters will charge that I haven't rightly understood Nevin here and that I must first purchase a Mercersburg decoder ring before attempting to comment; but the simple truth is that this is exactly how Nevin was understood by virtually every party, whether pro or con, back then. When Dabney identified Nevin's view of mystical union as "pan-Christism" and "modern semi-pantheism", he wasn't being flip. This charge came from virtually every quarter of Protestantism on both sides of the Atlantic (Dorner and Krummacher on the European side). Even the high-church Lutherans couldn't stand with Mercersburg on the sacraments because of their views on mystical union.
This very element is what makes their view of sacraments so dangerous, not helpful. They are not reemphasizing the old Reformed view of the real spiritual presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper received by faith, but instead assert the "spiritual real presence" (their term) of Christ. This presence was available "objectively" to anyone who partook because Christ's theanthropic life had been implanted in all of humanity at the Incarnation. Faith in Christ isn't necessary.
Again, Nevin's supporters today will say that I have misunderstood him, but this is how Nevin was understood by everyone, supporter and detractor alike, in his own day. Even Nevin himself admitted that he was going way beyond Calvin on the sacraments. I would add that Nevin was going way beyond Rome, which is why I think that the charge of "Romanizing" is too light for Nevin, not too heavy.
I wish the quote you provided was available in full because I'm not sure it's saying what I think you're saying it says. No doubt substitionary atonement is in the Heidelberg but the question here may very well be how essential that understanding is to the gospel, especially when it seems that the Heidelberg's reporting of the doctrine seems almost word for word straight out of Cur Deus Homo. Additionally, the doctrine is absent from Q22/23 on what exactly is the summary of the Christian faith.
Of course this is also relevant to some of what Norman Shepherd has noted about the Heidelberg and its view on this and related topics.
So as I said, knowing the full context would make sifting through this much easier.
Kevin, thanks for stopping by. Even Mercersburg's closest friends admitted that this article was making the point that I claim it was. I'll dig up B.S. Schneck's comments on this very passage (Schneck was a member of the committee that called Schaff to Mercersburg and was a strident defender of Nevin and Schaff during the 1840s&50s theological controversy).
And consider that this isn't near as bad as what Rupp said in his Mercersburg Review article on "Regeneration and Conversion" related to the atonement.
Your question does raise an important point (putting my polemic hat on...). What context could possibly make this quote acceptable to a Reformed confessionalist, either Heidelberg or Westminster? And isn't calling for larger context sometimes a deconstructionist tactic? If I quote a couple of pages, someone could argue that I've ripped it out of context of the chapter; if I quote the whole chapter, an accusation could be lodged that I'm failing to account for how the chapter falls into the argument of the whole book. If considering an infinite number of contexts to frame this quote, I'm sure that there might be one or two that could make it palatable. Exactly how much context am I obligated to provide? Can't we take these words at face value?
I should also note that I haven't chosen this quote at random. It was fairly controversial in the latter rounds of theological controversy in the RCUS and was defended and criticized by both sides of the dispute. This should be well known to Mercersburg's current supporters. How do they respond to it and the discussion it prompted?
>Now I expect that Nevin's modern-day supporters will charge that I haven't rightly understood Nevin here
Actually by your own statement this isn't Nevin here, to the best of your understanding.
Actually, the view of the "generic life of Christ" and the "theanthropic life" I described in the paragraph immediately preceding that statement you identifed would be representative of both Nevin and the unnamed writer of the passage cited in the original post. I even state that this was Nevin's view two sentences before I make the statement you cited:
"This is Nevin's view of mystical union and what drew the most criticism from Nevin's detractors, like Hodge and Dabney..."
I would contend that the original citation is merely taking Nevin's views to their logical conclusion.
Post a Comment