It turns out the expression “Ecclesia reformata semper reformanda,” though often imputed to the Reformers, was probably never enunciated by them at all. At least, no one has been able to give me a citation.
Here is an invitation to the world: send me a documentable citation, and I will reholster my revolver.
(One internet doctor claims Voetius, but could not give a citation in response to my email query. Not that Voetius counts as a Reformer anyhow.)
Let’s think about the slogan. I give my dynamic-equivalent translation: “The Reformed Church should continually be formed again” (lit. “is always to be reformed.”)
If the expression were merely saying that all councils and creeds are in principle subject to err, then it is utterly missing the point to single out the church reformata as the one always to be reforming. Indeed, if we really are Reformed, we should believe that above all the non-reformed church needs to be reformed. Even then, we would not use semper. It just needs to be reformed, not continually re-forming: “Ecclesia non reformata reformanda.”
Or if it is an expression used in in-fighting, say in a debate at Presbytery against someone arguing “we’ve always done it that way,” then that sense should be brought out with a qualifier like “even,” such as: “Ecclesia et reformata reformanda est.” (And again: no semper needs to be inserted in such a context.)
However, that too goes too far. We don’t believe that the reformed church needs to be ready to undergo a new overhaul comparable to that of the Reformation which brought about the name reformed in juxtaposition to the superstitions of popery that preceded it. So why use the same word when mentioning that further tweaks to the system may be envisaged? At best (and this is being charitable) it introduces an equivocation. Why not instead something like: “Potest ecclesia et reformata se parve emendare.”
If we believe a major overhaul is always possible, of the same order of magnitude as the Reformation itself, then we have not really embraced Reformed theology in a heartfelt way. We are mere grumblers, stuck in a pasture we don’t like very much, always seeing, or expecting to see, greener grass over yonder.
If we are confessional, we should on the contrary stand confidently on the creeds and confessions of our church, and not have a mindset that is always looking to lay down a new floor.
The Reformers did not think the accepted creeds needed to be overthrown. Instead, it was chiefly the corruption due to the rule of men that needed to be reformed.
The truthful expression would go something like “the true, reformed church should move forward confidently in terms of its confession (while also willing every so often to re-examine this or that detail in response to a complaint or overture).” This is hardly worthy of being sloganized, in Latin or otherwise.
There is a cyclical view of history built into the slogan “ecclesia reformata semper reformanda.” It is not much of an exaggeration to suggest there is even a latent belief in chaotic renewal, a Saturnalia view of human history. In contrast, when Jefferson predicted we would need a new revolution every 15 or 20 years to preserve our freedom, he was in a sense being the ultimate reactionary. The danger was in what men would do, not in the foundational creed. It wasn’t as though he was suggesting that a new revolution would be needed to undo the freedom of the press.
Leaving aside those that ignorantly parrot what they have heard, I suspect that most people that use the expression are opposed to the confession they allegedly stand upon; or at least, opposed to enforcing it very strictly.
Good post.
I never was fond of Semper Reformanda. The whole concept of a continual re-forming of the Church is ridiculous. Glad to know the phrase is not attributable to the Reformers themselves.
Nice post. This should be required reading for all elders and elder candidates in reformed and presbyterian churches. It would also benefit those who are playing the role of elder in wannabe reformed and presbyterian churches.
I think I can read between the lines here. TJH likes the hellenized verson of Christianity with its neat and logical categories. In the begin there was Logic, right TJH?
Any theological development that takes him away from comfortable systematic doctrine is a threat to him. C’mon, embrace a more covenantal/hebraic perspective. It may not be “logical” but its good.
Isn’t the complete phrase “Ecclesia reformata semper reformanda est secundu Verbum Dei?” (“the reformed Church must be always reforming according to the Word of God”) I don’t see the problem, should we always be aiming to be reformed and be continually more conformed to the word of God. Unless perfection has been acheived and there is no more room for sanctification, then in my oppinion the phrase is spot-on. And nevermind who the original author of the phrase was, the phrase is consistent with biblical protestant thought. What more do you need?
Ah, Anon, I’ve always wanted to meet you. I’m a fan of a lot of your music from the Renaissance.
No, the adverbial phrase is already assumed in the meaning of the shorter version, and thus does not add anything to overthrow the objections that I listed. Rather than repeat them, I would humbly commend a reading of my post.
I do have some comments about what you have written here.
First, is not reformata a participle? Therefore, you could translate it awkwardly, “The church having been reformed must always be reforming according to the word of God?” You seem to take reformata ecclesia as necessarily the Reformed Church, which I do not think is necessarily true (although if we knew the author of the phrase, then we might be able to determine if you are right to take it this way).
Second, you said, “The Reformers did not think the accepted creeds needed to be overthrown.” Did not some reformers disagree with the phrase in the Apostles’ Creed, “and descended into hell”? Correct me if I am wrong, but the Anglican Church went out of its way to affirm this doctrine in their 39 Articles; didn’t they do that because some disputed whether the Scriptures actually taught that Christ descended into hell? The reformers who did dispute it did not change the creeds — that much is true.
Third, why do you equate reformation with revolution? People who are calling for reformation are not calling for revolution, unless you want to try to prove that they are calling for revolution — which you did not do.
Finally, you equate the church with the doctrines the church believes. Is the church equivalent to the church government? Or is the church the community of believers? If it is the community of believers (as Rushdoony would say), then perhaps the original intent of the phrase was merely to reiterate Romans 12:2, “And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.” If it was merely to reiterate this passage, then perhaps our creeds and confessions can be used to always be reforming the members of the congregation (i.e., the church). In this sense, then, you are trying to reform the church with your post. This, of course, is turning the statement around from how it is usually used.
I am guessing that the real problem you have with this phrase is how it is usually used, but you might not have a problem with how its author originally used it.
Now, off I go to try to find the author of that phrase.
If you google Voetius and semper reformanda, you’ll get a bunch of sources. It appears that Voetius said, ecclesia reformata sed semper reformanda sicut verbum Deum. However, I will admit, most of the hits that I was receiving online from “semper reformanda” were PCUSA or World Council of Churches or otherwise extremely liberal. Having seen that, keep your gun unholstered, says I!
David: Yes. As far as I can tell, the expression is always used seditiously. Let us know if you find an actual Voetius citation (book, page).
The participle functions as an attibutive adjective. There is an ambiguity whether it refers (lower-case) descriptively to “whatever churches are reformed” or capitalized, the Reformed Church. However, it turns out it does not matter which of those you take. The usage is always tilting at the reformed churches, thus Reformed or Presbyterian. That is, you never hear a Lutheran using the expression, nor even adapting it as “The Lutheran church should always be reforming.” No doubt, the expression plays on the ordinary sense of the word used in the name; thus, it would be like if Tim Ware were to say, “The Orthodox Church must always be orthodox.”
The Westminster Theological Seminary fund-raising pamphlet translates it with lower-case; but again, they are tapping into their own reputation as a reformed institution. Since it is not ecclesiastically affiliated, it has the generic sense, but of course that sense still refers to the Reformed church community, not just any ecclesiastical group that has undergone restructuring.
(The WTS booklet inverts the order and presents it in a present-participle form, not gerundive, semper reformans, semper reformata. The force is approximately the same. They claim the 16th-century reformers used the expression, but neither President Lillback nor Logan has answered my inquiry for an actual citation. I’m pretty sure there is none. I think the expression is basically a metonymy for “Machen is dead.”)
No, the church is not a “community of believers” simpliciter. At best, you could say that that is necessary but not sufficient; even that requires a qualification so as not to make the anabaptist mistake. We’ll be unpacking this more in future weeks.
Likewise, the phrase cannot sensibly be used to refer to the need for individual sanctification, since that would apply to all Christians, and the antecedent qualification of a certain kind of church would be superfluous.
Cunningham (19th c.) made that and other objections to the Apostles Creed, and I agree with him that it should be dropped. Calvin bent over backwards to give an acceptable interpretation to the descensus phrase, but I think most church historians agree that his teaching on that was idiosyncratic. Recall that the Apostle’s Creed was never officially adopted by the church. The Reformers were eager to show that they were in continuity with the historical church, so they went a bit too far in their defense of it IMO.
Tim,
Phrases mean whatever I want them to mean. End of story.
Semper Reformanda.
As I was reading Robert Reymond’s “A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith” I ran across this–
“… the theological task in general is both a constructive and a demonstrative one, both a critical and a defensive one–…. Critical in that the theologian must allow for the possibility of a departure from the truth at some point or other in his church’s dogmas and in the systematic system which he himself proposes, meaning, first, that if he detects errors anywhere, he must seek to remedy them in the proper way, and second, if he discovers lacunae, he must endeavor to supply what is lacking (for Reformed theologians this aspect of the theological task is captured in the motto ‘ecclesia reformata semper reformanda’–”a Reformed church is always reforming”)…”
More’s the pity! (Bad translation too.)
Packer uses the “motto” too. It is truly an amazing piece of urban legend in the Reformed community.
It seems unlikely to me that the motto would have been generated by a genuine Reformer or even an early Puritan.
Here’s an article that attributes something similar to V (though you will be disappointed to see, without citation – though likely the referenced work does provide such a citation).
-Turretinfan
Professor Edward Dowey of Princeton Seminary said in 1976 that he and a circle of colleagues in the history department had once tried to nail the source of “Ecclesia reformata sed semper reformanda” but couldn’t find one. The expression was an example of a meme (not Dowey’s term) that seemed suddenly to come from everywhere and nowhere among Reformed thinkers, something like a zeitgeist
By way of follow-up I have tried to dig into the issue a bit deeper.
All I have come up with are some general claims that it was originated by Johannes Hoornbeeck (1617-1666) and some more specific claims that it was coined by Jodocus von Lodenstein in a book (the title of which was not provided) in 1675.
Shortly thereafter, Pope Innocent XI (pope from 1676 to 1689) coined the competing phrase numquam reformat quia numquam deformata (never reformed because never deformed), which suggests that the “semper reformata” catchphrase must have experienced some level of popularity at the time.
There is no evidence at all that I have seen to suggest that the phrase was used any earlier than the middle of the 17th century.
-Turretinfan
Misuses of “The Reformed Church always reforming”:
1. To justify doctrinal innovation based upon the current consensus of X or the teaching of Y, whether the consensus or teaching is from the 16th Century or December 16, 2006. Protestants and Roman Catholics both claim “doctrinal progress” for the peculiarities of their own differences with each other and with other ancient Christian belief and practice.
2. As an equivocation of the identity of the Church with its repentance and sanctification.
3. As a cop-out for failing to identify clearly the exact connection between the Church of the Reformation with the Church before the Reformation in Europe in the 16th Century. Protestants will say that there were always Christians since the Apostolic era, but not necessarily a discernable Church. What, then was ‘reformed’? If the Papist parishes and dioceses constituted the Church at all, what precisely was the point when such ceased being constituencies of the Church? Who is authorized to decide this important breaking point?
4. As an application of the form/essence distinction. “The Church can ‘form anew’ without changing its ‘essential’ nature/existence/life.” This goes back to my question #3. This might be true or it might be false, but we need biblical categories when attempting an answer.
My questions will lead the “knee jerk” to conclude that I am anti-Protestant or pro-RC or EO. I am a confirmed Protestant who, it would seem, is asking similar questions as TJH, though perhaps for different reasons.
Dear Alcuin,
The Council of Trent is the usual clear boundary between the greviously fallen but reformable church (i.e. the church of Rome and those churches politically connected to her), and an irreformable non-church.
The Council of Trent is recognized as authoritative by virtually all hierarchs of the Catholic church, and, thus, there is no question that it is both reasonable and just to judge the RCC by the acts of that council. In other words, there is no issue of authority.
Previous to the council of Trent, the various heretical teachings of miscellaneous popes and even of miscellaneous minor councils could have been reformed with the existing mechanisms of the RCC.
However, after the council of Trent, there is no longer a mechanism within the RCC to reform the RCC.
After it was not “the Church” that the Reformers sought to reform, but the “the churches” of their respective countries, canons, etc. virtually all of which had some political connection to the church of Rome (England, post Henry VIII, being a notable exception).
-Turretinfan
It’s obvious that the reformers wouldn’t agree with “ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda” since they viewed themselves as mini-popes, and since they kept certain non-Biblical and even anti-Biblical traditions of Rome, like infant baptism and the ever virginity of Mary. They wouldn’t want a REAL reformation to come around after their death and remove their favorite Romish fables, now would they?
jk — there’s a critical thinking course available on tape from Covenant Media Foundation. Highly recommended.
You could have been more helpful than that, TJH. Allow me…
[Go here and] Put them on you iPod. It’s a steal for around 40 bucks.
Correction: This is the better link for the Critcal Thinking course. It’s a cd with all 19 mp3’s on it for only 29.95.
The source of this (very orthodox!) phrase appears to have been Jacobus Koelman (published under the pseudonym Christophilius Eubulus), from the book De pointen van nodige reformatie omtrent de kerk (VLissingen: 1678). (The title translates as ‘Points where the Church needs Reforming‘). Koelman was a student of Gijsbert Voetius and Johannes Hoornbeeck.
The *point* of the phrase (which is properly translated as ‘the church reformed and always reforming’) is that even though there had been a reformation, the church is *always* in danger of straying (and indeed does stray) and thus needs always to be called back to the Word of God. In this sense, ‘church’ does not mean specifically the “Reformed Church” but simply the Church of Christ on Earth.
Kepler– good sleuthing. We’ll record the current front-runner as Koelman, 1678.
Can you tell us some of the context for which he coined the phrase? I’m fantasizing, that rather than it being something like “let’s rethink the Trinity,” the conversation may have been something like:
“Gentlemen, I move that we change the tap in the church basement to Heinekken.”
“Outrageous! We’ve always used Grolsch.”
“Ja, but… ecclesia reformata semper reformanda.”
On a more serious note… has your research uncovered any Lutheran, Roman, or Eastern theologian that would refer to his own church as ecclesia reformata?
Well, the Lutheran pietists picked up on the phrase pretty quickly, and were using it late in the 17th or very early in the 18th century. And, like in may of the Reformed traditions, it has survived in Lutheranism, in both pietist and confessional circles.
I haven’t seen the book myself (the only copy in existence that I know of is in the Amsterdam University library), and when I lived in Holland it was not something I was looking into, although it came up recently in work in a completely different context, which is why I have spent some time chasing it down.
But as for context…I suspect (and there is a great deal of evidence for this suspicion) that it originates out of the Federal vs. Puritan controversies of the 1650s and 60s. Koelman (who was of the ‘Puritan’ variety) likely was arguing that the Federal Theology of Johannes Coccejus was a form of heterodoxy (if not outright heresy) that needed “reforming” (read: purging).
Best guess.
Kepler (or other readers) — I will soon be reporting on the early Pietist movement, especially as it was taken up by Prussia. So, if you have any links or documents of early Pietist use of the phrase, please forward.
Always been suspicious of the way this phrase is quoted every time someone wants to change something (from a tap to the trinity) in a Reformed Church. It is quoted in a way that suggests that Reformed ministers in the 1640s were heading their notepaper with it. I am glad to hear of a named originator and the suggestions of a context.
I think the phrase has some value – in the sense of being continually responding to God’s transforming word. But not in the sense of recruiting the magisterial reformation into any church disagreement.
Carl Trueman has an article in the most recent Free Church of Scotland Monthly Record discussing the phrase. The title is “Wrongheaded Reformation”. He also is dubious about its source.
Unfortunately T-fan has weighed in in favor of this wretched slogan. In addition to all that has been said above, observe that we should make a sharp distinction between (1) being teachable and (2) needing to be reformed or changed, especially in the constitution of the church. It might very well be that this or that church settlement is without need for further improvement, that it matches the biblical blueprint adequately. So such a church should not think of itself as reformanda, even though the leaders should still be teachable. Being teachable means allowing the possibility that error might be discovered in the future; but this is quite different than believing that undiscovered error is there which should be reformed, though no one has any idea how. The same line of thinking applies to the official doctrine of the church.
Certainly, the expression could be used in the polemic of a specific debate, as an aspect of its rhetoric. The names of two or three 17th century Dutchman have been dredged up, though usually without very much of the context. Kepler (#23) claims the German pietists used it. Though I have not been able to verify this from reading Gawthrop, if they did so use it, it would have been part of their apologetic against the Orthodox party which they believed was dead.
Converting this particular debate rhetoric into a slogan to rally around points to an underlying Manichaeism coupled with skepticism: that adequate truth can never be known and settled. It does not appear to have been so used until liberalism (unless Kepler is right about the pietists).
TJH,
Opera >9.0 and IE 8.o don’t display your comment numbers in sequence: every comment is labeled “1.”. Firefox is golden, and I’m not sure about Safari. FYI
I certainly agree with your distinction and don’t much care for the slogan because of its potential for the kind of wrong understanding that makes you want to reach for your revolver.
T-fan — excellent.
Josh — Safari works I see. Not familiar with Opera or IE. If anyone knows the fix email us at the usual place. I could add it to the list of annual maintainance items if it is easy to test.