Semper Reformanda

The title of this posting is part of a slogan I was taught at College. Ecclesia Reformata semper reformanda est. The Reformed Church is always reforming. This raises a few questions.
1. Is constant reformation necessary? That the Church is constantly reforming may not be the way things are supposed to be. Surely, if we have the truth and truth doesn't change, why is there any necessity to change further? To which there are at least two answers. The devil is our adversary and he does not always attack the truth the same way. As examples:
a) In the 16th Century the issue facing the Reformed Churches (on the matter of how we are saved) was whether by an exercise of free will it was possible to choose to savingly believe in Jesus Christ. In that century it was considered that the will was completely free to make choices without any influence from (say) the desires. In our century it is considered that the will is subject to the desire of the heart. We say, in contrast to the 16Th Century reformers, we are free to choose whatever we want and what we choose demonstrates what we really want. This means that the point of attack has moved from the choice to the desire which prompts the choice. So, where in the 16th Century it was necessary to prove the will is not free (being enslaved to sin), in ours we can take that for granted and show that "the desire of the heart is only evil continually" in order to achieve the same result.
b) We know that (according to the Westminster Confession) the fathers and councils have and do err continually. We still don't know all truth and so we sometimes neglect certain aspects of the truth which, by later debates, are rediscovered. God often uses differing opinions and even errors to correct our understanding of the truth. In the centuries following the Reformation there was a tendency to limit the preaching to church buildings. During the Great Awakening, God showed that this view limited the numbers who could gather to hear the gospel. George Whitefield, for example, often had to preach outdoors so all who wanted to hear could do so. In the same way we sometimes limit the application of past truths because we think what has worked in the past is the way it should always be done.

2. Does this negate the value of past confessions? Not at all. A comparison between, say, the Westminster Confession and the Apostle's Creed shows that although the former is more extensive the essential doctrine covered in both is the same, if not in language, in intent. Further, comparing the teaching of the classical Reformation Creeds with the Decrees of Chalcedon (on the issue of the divinity and humanity of Christ) shows that both groups understood the Bible teaching on this subject the same way.

One of the great preachers in London during the 19th Century was often heard to say that one thing which convinced him that he was teaching the truth of Scripture was the large number of the greatest of saints of the past who taught the same thing. Though history and tradition are not normative in Reformed thinking, only the Bible is the rule for faith and life, they do help us ensure we are not too far off the beaten track since we believe as have the saints of old.

3. But is all change good? Of course not. That why we test all things by the Scriptures. The 16th Century reformers checked the teaching of the Church of which they were members on the issue of how many sacraments God instituted, for example. The Church of their day recognized seven, which Calvin, Knox and the others reduced to two. That meant that there were only two common ceremonial rites celebrated in the Church. Was this change a good thing? We believe so, because we can show clear warrant from Scripture for these sacraments. There is still debate about how they should be administered and just how they achieve their function as signs and seals of the faith but none about the number.

One change which may not have been so good is the fairly recent idea that preaching does not need to be an exposition of Scripture. It has become fashionable to preach about subjects "suggested" by the text of the Bible. It would appear that in some cases New Testament preachers did not expound on a single text of Scripture but God blessed the method used by the Reformers of old and, unless we can be sure that the hearers will see the connection between the Bible and the subject of the sermon it is wiser (it seems to me) to use expository preaching.

4. What is the benefit of Change? Since we do not know all things, the possibility of change allows us to be more flexible in applying Scripture to our lives in the present era. It also means that, in humility, we can admit our understanding of Scripture may be right as far as our understanding is concerned and that someone else may be right as far as his understanding leads him to be. As long, therefore, as we agree on the essentials of the Christian faith we should be able to allow for expressions of difference since, in the long run, God the Holy Spirit leads us into a fuller understanding of the Word of God.

And, change also makes us constantly return to the Scriptures to make sure we are "rightly dividing the word of truth." Such an exercise is always beneficial to Church and individual. And sometimes we can even discover that what we thought were insurmountable differences are not so great after all. Sometimes, just like the different accounts of the Gospels, it turns out to be just a different way of looking at the same thing.

Footnote: Jan. 28, 2010
When I wrote this article I was not aware of a book using the same title. Edited by Dr David Engelsma this book contains a sereis of contributions which traces the history of the Reformed Churches in the Nederlands including the secession which led to the founding of the Protestant Reformed Churches. It is available via the Covenant Protestant Reformed Church bookstore on their website. This is the link.