The formal and material principles

Philip Schaff defines the formal and material principles of the Reformation thus:

the material of life principle (principium essendi) of the Reformation [...] is no other than the great doctrine, which is presented by Paul especially as the entire sum of the gospel - the doctrine of the justification of the sinner before God by the merit of Christ alone through faith [...]

the formal or knowledge principle [...] consists in this, that the word of God, as it has been handed down to us in the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments, is the pure and proper source as well as the only certain measure of all saving truth.

(italics original, p.80-98, The Principle of Protestantism)

Martin Luther may be everyone's go-to guy for the material principle, but would we point to the person who called James an 'epistle of straw' as a great exponent of the formal principle? A lot could be written about Luther's doctrine of Scripture, but I think Oswald Bayer gets to the heart of why Luther doesn't fit into the standard neat distinction of formal and material principles. For Luther the 'authority of Scripture is not formal but is highly material and is content driven' (p.69, Martin Luther's Theology: A Contemporary Interpretation). This means that we don't follow a two step plan to knowing the truth of God:

• Step 1: Establish source of revelation
• Step 2: From that source derive knowledge of God and how we relate to him

This is the way that many Protestant confessions seem to proceed (at least post-Reformation), and it is the way many systematic theologies are organised. Oswald Bayer certainly does not like to do things that way though:

one does not arrive at the solution to the question [of the authority of Scripture] "in the passionless calm of a knowledge which is in the element of pure thought alone" [Hegel]; instead, it includes a change in the existence of the reader and interpreter. The Holy Scripture verifies itself, in that it awakens faith. As has been stated already, it does not work for one to take the so-called scriptural principle and try to differentiate between a "Protestant formal principle" and a "Protestant material principle," which states the teaching about justification; one certainly ought not to treat them as separate. Both are one and the same: wrapped up in the event that takes place when the righteousness of God is actually given as a gift, at the moment the promissio is articulated, one encounters the authority of Scripture, its efficacy and clarity - its ability to enlighten - as well as its sufficiency: its power to bring one to salvation - if indeed Scriputure is given "for the salvation" of human beings (2 Tim. 3:15). The question about the significance of the reformational turning point in Luther's theology and the question about Luther's understanding of biblical authority are the same; they are one and the same question.

(p.75-76, ibid)

I think this is related to what Mike Reeves is getting at when he says when you treat revelation as 'the ladder to get you up into the actual playroom of Christian theology, you tend to treat revelation and scripture in a non-Christian way because it is outside the room' (beginning of talk 2 here). Mike Reeves concern here is with the relation between Christology and revelation, but one thing I have begun to see lately is that Christology, revelation and salvation are all so bound up together that you cannot really separate them without doing some serious harm. John Calvin's Geneva Catechism, 1541, exemplifies that:

1. Minister. What is the chief end of human life?

Child. To know God

[...how do we know?...]

C. By His Word, in which He declares His mercy to us in Christ, and assures us of His love toward us

14. M. Then the foundation for true reliance upon God is to know Him in Jesus Christ (John 17:3)?

C. That is true

(pp.5-7, Trans. and ed. TF Torrance, The School of Faith: The Catechisms of the Reformed Church - that is the beginning and end of the introduction section prior to the section on the Apostles Creed)

This may seem to be the height of obscure theological discussion, but if you think that just meditate a while on what this means for how you try and witness to the truth of the Gospel to non-Christians.

Protestant Scholasticism or Reformed Orthodoxy

This may not interest many, but there is a long-running debate about how we should regard seventeenth century Protestant theology. Martin Downes quotes Richard Gaffin challenging the prevailing negative assessment in a recent post. I have no opinion on the matter, not knowing enough to comment, but thought I would just note down a quotation from Philip Schaff which shows what this negative assessment actually looks like and also shows that it the attitude has been around for a while.

The seventeenth century is the period of Protestant scholasticism. It furnishes a parallel to the Catholic scholasticism of the Middle Ages, but is much richer in biblical learning. Its exegesis bears the same relation to the exegesis of the Reformers (henceforward revered as protestant Fathers) as the medieval exegesis to the patristic. It has the prevailing character of reproduction, compilation, and confessional contraction. It was based on a mechanical theory of verbal inspiration or dictation, which was most minutely formulated, and acted as a check upon independent research. An infallible Book was set over against an infallible Church. The Protestant Confessions of Faith acquired the authority of Catholic tradition. Exegesis was controlled by dogmatic systems and made subservient to polemic confessionalism. The Bible was used as a repository of proof-texts, without discrimination between the Old and New Testaments, and between the different books. A vast amount of patient, pedantic, antiquarian learning was accumulated.

(p.215f, Theological Propaedeutic)

One thing I do wonder a little is whether a difference between the Puritan theology of Britain and the continental Protestant theologians.

The Principle of Protestantism

I've just finished The Principle of Protestantism by Philip Schaff. It's a fascinating little book. It was delivered as an inauguration address in German, when Schaff was just 25 and newly emigrated to America from Germany to take up a post in a new seminary with just one other member of the teaching staff. Schaff would become one of the most important Church Historians of the 19th century, and freshly landed in America he had plenty to say for himself.

Most striking to me were three (interconnected) things that run throughout the book:

1. An incredibly positive evaluation of other church traditions then and in the past, coupled with a strong belief in the truth of reformed protestantism.
2. The importance of the church uniting, yet a understanding that protestant distinctives not be compromised in any way.
3. That the church is growing and developing in life and doctrine throughout history.

This Hegelian influenced, absolute confidence in progress is astonishing. As Christians we often hear about how the liberal belief in progress has been destroyed by the two world wars of the 20th century, but I have never read it so strongly held. For Schaff "Protestantism is the principle of movement, of progress in the history of the church; progress, not such as may go beyond the Bible and Christianity, but such as consists in an ever-extending knowledge of the Bible itself, and an ever-deepening appropriation of Christianity as the power of a divine life, which is destined to make all things new" (p. 201, emphasis his).

However, Schaff is no naive optimist as 'it must not be forgotten however, in connection with this that there is a corresponding movement also on the part of evil, towards that which is worse, Light and darkness, the wheat and the tares, grow together till their development shall become complete' (p.222).

This is strange to my ears, and I don't know what to make of it.

This principle of progress runs throughout the book and informs all of his observations on the history of the Church. Protestantism he sees not as the rediscovery of the truth held by the church fathers, but as a development of doctrine (he lists justification by faith, and the authority of scripture, as the material and formal principle of the Reformation) against a church which thought it had the truth nailed down, and the infiniteness depths of God with it. He finds the two 'diseases' of the church of his day to be rationalism and sectarianism. And yet he finds God working in both. The scientific method is a wonderful gift to the church to aid its understanding of the bible and the world - and yet rationalism is still a deadly disease to war against. All the different denominations and nationalities (America as melting pot comes through very clearly) have lessons for each other which must not be reduced to common-denominator Christianity for the sake of unity - and yet the division in the church is a horrendous sin.

The trouble is, I just don't know whether I can accept the idea of historical progress which for Schaff is such a fruitful way of understanding God's working in the world. However, I can't think of an argument against it of the top of my head.

PS Incidentally the other fascinating thing about Schaff, which I have found in many 19th century writers is that he is more than willing to make sweeping generalisations about the character of different nations. In the different nations he is happy to see the strengths (which he hopes will be combined in America), but he is clear that he thinks Germany is pretty great. Here is a taster:

the proper home of Protestant theology is Germany, and hence we may say that those who refuse to take account of German theology, set themselves in fact against the progress of Protestantism...We wish not to depreciate in the least the merits acquired in former ties, by the Dutch and the English in particular, in the way of biblical study...The German is always disposed rather to put an undue value on what is foreign, and has long since appropriated the results of these investigations and worked them into the process of his own cultivation. But what is all this beside the gigantic creations of German theology! All its heresies cannot destroy my respect for it...for only an archangel can become a devil. As England and America would not have been able at all to produce so fearful an enemy of Christianity as David Fridrich Strauss, so must they have been much less able to meet him with a proper refutation; and I shudder at times to think of the desolation his writings must occasion, if they should come to be much read-which may God prevent-in this country. (p.202)

You can't help but smile a little.