I just had a really good time of catching up with a mentor of mine, Dr. Ron Frost. He is a former seminary prof of mine from my days at Multnomah Biblical Seminary, and a guy whom I worked for as his TA for a bit of time. He is a historical theologian by training (PhD King’s College, University of London), more particularly, a English Puritan expert. He wrote his PhD dissertation on the nuances represented in English Puritanism which develops the inherent rift (both ecclesiologically and thus theologically) present in the ‘house’ of the Puritans. His dissertation focused, in particular on the theology of Richard Sibbes, who is largely foiled, by another Puritan theologian, William Perkins. In general, the distinction between these two men represents a distinction between a genuinely Trinitarian theological trajectory (Sibbes) versus one that is classically theistic in orientation (Perkins). Here is the abstract of his dissertation:
Reformed theologians were divided over matters of grace in the early seventeenth century. The issue separated those who adopted the affective theology of Richard Sibbes (1577-1635) and those who held a moralistic theology promoted by William Perkins (1558-1602). Their differences, which emerged in the Antinomian Controversy of New England (1636-38), touched matters of sin, salvation and sanctification. Recent studies identify and descnbe this later division, but Sibbes’ reasons for adopting an alternative approach are largely unexplored. This study examines those reasons.
To that end, the study shows that Sibbes rejected the Aristotelian ethical assumptions apparent in Perkins’ federal theology. Perkins’ assumptions led him to portray grace as God’s enablement of the human will to achieve faith, thus making faith a human responsibility Sibbes, against this, portrayed faith as a response to God’s love in the elect, elicited by the Spirit.
Sibbes’ affective theology is shown to agree with positions expressed by Augustine, Bernard of Clairvaux, Luther, and Calvin. Furthermore, the explicit rejection of Aristotle’s assumptions in the Nicomachean Ethics by Luther and Melanchthon offer evidence that central assumptions of these early reformers were discarded by Perkins’ form of federal theology in favor of a Thomistic synthesis. Chapter one introduces the division and its implications for adjacent historical studies. Chapter two examines Sibbes’ position, identifying his premise, that faith is a response to God’s grace, defined as loving self-disclosure. This is opposed to Perkins’ model of faith as an act of the self-moved will, as enabled by superadded grace. Chapter three examines the separate definitions of sin used by Perkins and Sibbes. Chapter four examines Sibbes’ use of a marital covenant, rather than a bilateral contract, as his paradigm for salvation. Perkins’ and Sibbes’ differring anthropologies are assessed in chapter five. Chapter six evaluates Sibbes’ lack of consistency as expressed in his doctrine of assurance. [Taken from the Abstract to Ron Frost’s dissertation, Richard Sibbes’ Theology of Grace and the Division of English Reformed Theology (1996), now is available for purchase under the title: Richard Sibbes: God’s Spreading Goodness]
It is Frost’s fault that I have taken the trajectory that I have in my own development towards a Trinitarian theology. I have taken a little different road than Ron by focusing on Thomas Torrance’s own deconstruction of classical theism, but the impulse that drives both of us is the same; we have a heart for God’s people, for Christ’s church, and a mutual desire to see the body of Christ truly participate in the riches of the God of love (not Law) that we have been invited into through the mediating and gracious and vicarious humanity of Christ.
Our discussion today revolved around our shared heart beat for the church of Jesus Christ. Ron uses an analogy to describe the basic problem, as he interprets it, that is facing the church of Christ; the analogy is the usage of an inverted pyramid. The point is that often in the Evangelical church, and in the academic setting in particular, a certain set of values derived from theological presuppositions have essentially hi-jacked a healthy well balanced love shaped conception of the body life present in the church. So instead of having a top down, power driven, hegemonic model of church ministry (which flows naturally from the trajectory set by classical theism); Frost, contends, and so would I, that this kind of top down pyramid needs to be inverted, resulting in a picture of the body of Christ that emphasizes an immediate and intimate relationship with God through Christ. Power is not the hallmark, brains aren’t the driving force in this model; the driving force is a participatory relationship with God in Christ, and then the kind of koinonia (fellowship) that naturally flows from this. It is a church that looks like the relationship that Jesus had with his intimate inner circle of disciples that was highly relational and personal in orientation; a model that sees Jesus as the head, and that sees us as participating with him in a way that has a contagion and multiplication effect. The kind of power that drives this is the kind on display at the cross of Christ, wherein we deny ourselves take up our cross and follow Jesus; the kind of relationship is the kind that is present between the Father, Son united in communion by the love of the Holy Spirit.
If this sounds interesting to you, let me know. I will unpack, maybe later today, what classical theism is; and how ‘ct’ has radically disrupted the church life in a horrifically disjointed way.
*If anyone is interested in pursuing this further with me, I am available to come to your church to provide a work shop that delves deeper into the differences that are present between doing church Trinitarianly versus through the dominate model provided by classical theism. You can contact me at: growba@gmail.com
PS. Ron Frost blogs here.
Pingback: What is Classical Theism?: And what impact does this have on the American Church? « The Evangelical Calvinist
This is great stuff, Bobby. Keep it coming!
Very interesting and helpful, Bobby. I have commented recently that I find that the metaphor of family is a more helpful one than body when describing the church. I am conscious of the diverse experiences and associations that other will have when they think of family, but I have been blessed by rich times of fellowship and sharing that I have enjoyed with my parents and siblings and their children. There is no place for top down stuff here but in relationship there is encouragement and honour and respect and mutual sumbmission not because of some hierarchy of roles or birth order but because we genuine love and like each other. Perhaps in the family of our Father if we allowed the Spirit to help us focus on our essential unity in Christ and celebrate our differences/distinctives rather than what we most easily do which is to focus on our differences and distinctives and make them the basis for unity then Jesus’ prayer in John 17 might be answered in our life time.
Hi Neil,
Great thoughts! Thank you for sharing them. And I agree; the unity is around and in Jesus, not something we construct. Of course one of the problems, Neil, is that there are competing constructs for what it means to be ‘in Christ’; and further, there are competing frameworks for understanding how Christ reveals and relates to the Father with the Holy Spirit. And so, there seems to be a catch 22 here; we all want to affirm, and ought to, that being in Christ is the basis of our unity—but then even conceiving of what this means can become the distinction and division that defines our relationships with other believers 🙁 .
Joel,
Thank you 🙂 .