Reformed Puritan vs Patristic Exegesis Differences
The Reformed Puritan approach to biblical exegesis differs significantly from Patristic methods, particularly in its understanding of tradition, the efficacy of sacraments, and the nature of sanctification.
One key distinction lies in the role of tradition. Protestants, including the Reformed, acknowledge a "common consent of Christians" but understand "Christians" to mean the true people of God, in contrast to the Roman Catholic view which includes all who profess the faith [4]. While Protestants recognize a tradition of doctrine within Scripture itself, where later sacred writers built upon earlier ones, they fundamentally distinguish this from the Roman Catholic doctrine of tradition, which posits an independent source of revelation [9]. This means that for Reformed Puritans, Scripture is the primary and sufficient source for understanding doctrine, with tradition serving a subordinate, interpretive role.
Regarding the sacraments, Reformed theology emphasizes the attending operation of the Holy Spirit and the necessity of faith in the recipient for their efficacy [1]. Charles Hodge notes that the Reformed Churches deny that the sacraments' power comes from their inherent virtue or the administrator, instead attributing it to the Spirit's work [1]. This contrasts with some Patristic interpretations, which, particularly in later developments, sometimes ascribed a more inherent power to the sacramental elements themselves. For instance, in the Eucharist, the Reformed deny that believers receive anything in the Lord's Supper that is not also received through the Word, or that was not granted to Old Testament saints [3]. The sanctifying power of sacraments is attributed to the Spirit's influence, rather than any supernatural virtue inherent in the elements, a point of difference even with Lutherans [2].
Furthermore, the Reformed and Lutheran traditions agree that sanctification is never perfected in this life, and sin is not entirely subdued, even in advanced believers [8]. This perspective, articulated by figures like the Apostle Paul in Philippians 3:12-14 [7], suggests a continuous struggle against sin, requiring daily prayer for forgiveness [8]. This contrasts with some Patristic and later Roman Catholic views that might emphasize a more complete eradication of sin or a state of perfection achievable in this life [6]. Regeneration, for the Reformed, involves the implanting of a new principle of life but does not immediately and entirely deliver the soul from all sin [5].
Sources
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, section 57: sunt, ant vacua: nec ad nos decipiendos aut frustrandos instituta. ” These symbols of the Reformed Churches on the continent of Europe agree with those of our own Church, not only in representing the sacraments as real means of grace, but also in denying that their efficacy is due to their inherent virtue, or to him who administers them, and in affirming that it is due to the attending operation of the Spirit, and is conditioned on the presence of faith in the recipient. This is plain from the quotations already made, which might be multi”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, section 57: however, is not the Word. In the case of the eucharist, for example, it is the real body and blood of Christ, and these being inseparably united with his soul and divinity, it is this marvellous gift, and not the Word, which makes the Lord’s Supper the life-sustaining food of the soul. So far as the efficacy of the sacraments is concerned, the main point of difference between the Lutherans and the Reformed is, that the latter attribute their sanctifying power to the attending influences of the Spirit; the former to the inherent, supernatu”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, section 69: the Lord’s Supper, which is not elsewhere offered to believers and experienced by them. 4. There is still another position maintained by the Reformed which is especially important as determining their doctrine on this subject. They not only deny that believers receive the body and blood of Christ in the Lord’s Supper otherwise than these are 641 received through the Word, but they deny that believers receive anything in the eucharist that was not granted and communicated to the saints under the Old Testament. This of course is decisive. U”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 1, section 37: common sense of the Church, while they reject the real and peculiar doctrine of Rome on this subject. B. Points of Difference between the Romish Doctrine and that of Protestants on Common Consent. The points of difference between the Protestant doctrine concerning the common faith of the Church and the Roman Catholic doctrine of tradition are: — First. When Protestants speak of common consent of Christians, they understand by Christians the true people of God. Romanists on the other hand, mean the company of those who profess the true fai”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, section 31: § 2. Wherein it consists. Admitting sanctification to be a supernatural work, the question still remains, What does it consist in? What is the nature of the effect produced? The truth which lies at the foundation of all the Scriptural representations of this subject is, that regeneration, the quickening, of which believers are the subject, while it involves the implanting, or communication of a new principle or form of life, does not effect the immediate and entire deliverance of the soul from all sin. A man raised from the dead may be an”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, section 27: § 5. The Doctrine of the Romish Church . The doctrine of Romanists as to the original state of man agrees with that of Protestants, except in one important particular. They hold that man before the fall, was in a state of relative perfection; that is, not only free from any defect or infirmity of body, but endowed with all the attributes of a spirit, and imbued with knowledge, righteousness, and holiness, and invested with dominion over the creatures. Protestants include all this under the image of God; the Romanists understand by the ima”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, section 36: says to the Philippians, iii. 12-14, “Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.” This is an unmistakable declaration on the part of the Apostle that even at this late p”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, section 36: § 7. Perfectionism. Protestant Doctrine. The doctrine of Lutherans and Reformed, the two great branches of the Protestant Church, is, that sanctification is never perfected in this life; that sin is not in any case entirely subdued; so that the most advanced believer has need as long as he continues in the flesh, daily to pray for the forgiveness of sins. The question is not as to the duty of believers. All admit that we are bound to be perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect. Nor is it a question as to the command of God; for the firs”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 1, section 37: § 6. Examination of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome on Tradition. A. Difference between Tradition and the Analogy of Faith. 1. The Romish doctrine of tradition differs essentially from the Protestant doctrine of the analogy of faith. Protestants admit that there is a kind of tradition within the limits of the sacred Scriptures themselves. One generation of sacred writers received the whole body of truth taught by those who preceded them. There was a tradition of doctrine, a traditionary usus loquendi , traditionary figures, types, and ”